.A^^ 



?' -^ 



#' % 






></>, 



^^ -^.^ 



/. ,<\^' 



'^"V^^V4^'V"'^'c/^^^:;^^X''^'V^ 



,^^ ■''c^. 





■/-! 




% ^•^' 




' -p 


, A 


/■■\ 




"^A 


v*^' 






x° 


°^^ 





.0 0_ 



o 0^ 






U ,<^' 

c'^^^ 









"oo^ 



v^^ -% 



^0 o . 






^#' :^ 









^^, .^^ 






o-^ -^ct 



^^W. 



.^ '^^ 



o5 -n*-. 






V' .^v 






^^ v-^' /, 






^. ,<^' 



■<^-% 



"OO" 



.s-> 



.a^ 



^-p, .■^ 



^,^'^1^. 



^^-: .^:^^^ 



\.<^ 



'-^y. N.^ 



^ "S. '^.'^^^ 



''/. C' 



WAR 

OR 

A UNITED WORLD 

BY 

SOTERIOS NICHOLSON 

Author of 
A WORIvD-ClTY OF CIVIUZATION," Etc. 



Published by 
THE WASHINGTON PUBLISHING HOUSE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

1916 






Copyright 1016 



SoTEKios Nicholson 



ro 



F' 



MAR 27 i9i8 



©Ci,A428274 



To 

James Brown Scott, A. M., J. U. D., LL. D. 

A staunch advocate of peace, a prudent 
counsellor and a loyal friend, this book is re- 
spectfully dedicated. 



WAR 

OR 

A UNITED WORLD 

With a Review of its Precursors in Europe 
A Retrospect and Estimate 

BY 
SOTERIOS NICHOLSON 



CHAPTERS 

PAGE 

I. THE GRECIAN PENINSULA - - 17 

II. THE ITALIAN PENINSULA - - 48 

III. THE ROMAN EMPIRE 103 

IV. FRANCO-IBERIAN PENINSULA - 119 
V. THE BRITISH ISLES 147 

VI. THE RISE OF RUSSIA ... - 172 

VII. GERMANY AND PRUSSIA - - - 201 

VIII. CAUSES OF THIS WAR - - - - 225 

IX. PEACE WITH JUSTICE - - - - 250 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I. 
The Grecian Peninsula. 
Ancient Greece to Byzantine Empire. 
Definition of "Greece"; Minoan and Myccnean Ages; Age of Ty- 
rants; Siege of Trey; Dr. Schliemann's Excavations; Dorian Inva- 
sion ; Spartan Descendants of Dorians ; First and Second Messenian 
Wars; Spartan Leaders in Peloponnesus; The Defense of Argos; 
Periander of Corinth; Dionysius of Syracuse; Pesistratus, a Lover of 
Art and Culture; Replacement of Tyrants by Democracy; Lycurgus 
and Solo, Fathers of Law; War of Thebes; Persian Wars; Over- 
powering of Croesus by Cyrus; Battle of Marathon; Leonidas in 
Battle at Thermopylae; Battle at Salamis ; Pericles in Power; Third 
Messenian War; Peloponnesian Wars; Alcibiades; Defeat of Athen- 
ians in Sicily by Spartans; Blockade of Athens by Lysander; Arta- 
xerxes; Xenophon; Agesilas, King of Sparta; Corinthian War; Peace 
of Antalcidas; Overthrow of Sparta; Pelopidas; Epaminondas, Leader 
of Thebes; Macedonia of Hellenic Stock; Philip, the Conqueror; Sa- 
cred War ; Philip's Assassination in Greece ; Alexander The Great in 
Asia Minor; Defeat of Darius by Alexander; Alexander in Egypt; 
Founding the City of Alexandria; Alexander in Persia; Alexander's 
March into Babylon; Alexander's Arrival in India; Death of Alex- 
ander at 32 (323 B. C.) ; Succession of Antipater Cratirus ; Achean 
League; Romans Entrance into Greece; Battle of Pharsala; Caesar's 
Reign in Greece; Byzantine Empire (323 A. D. to 1453); Recogni- 
tion of Christianity by Constantine ; Huns in Europe ; Visigoths ; 
Invasion of the Empire by Goths; Extinction of Western Roman 
Empire; Justinian; Belissarius ; Destruction of Jerusalem; Leo III; 
Moslem Invasion ; Greek Domination Over the Slavs ; Alexius Com- 
ninus; Crusaders; Turks in Macedonia; Mohammed's Siege of Con- 
stantinople (1453) ; Constantine XI Last Byzantine Emperor. 



CHAPTER II. 

The Italian Peninsula. 

Rome's Influence; Comparisons; Early Origins; Founding of Rome; 
Rape of the Sabines ; Tales of Warfare; Horatius; Pharsalia; Clan 
Struggles ; Servius Tullius ; Coriolanus ; Cincinnatus ; Reduction of 
Veii; Mt. Gaurus; Battle of Mt. Vesuvius; Second Samnite War; 
The Candine Forks; Third Samnite War; Sentinum; Beneventum; 
Ariminum; Army Organization; Military Roads; First Punic War; 
War with lUyrian Pirates; Clastidium; Capture of Saguntum; Trasu- 
menus; Cannae; Zama ; Conquests in the East; Magentia; Destruction 
of Carthage; Destruction of Numantia; The Slav Rebellion; Jugur- 
thine War; Aurasia; The Raudine Fields; Capture of Bovianum; 
Marius and Sulla; Sulla's Proscriptions; Revolt of Lepidus; War of 
Sertorius ; War of the Gladiators ; Pompey and the Pirates ; Second 
Mithridatic War ; Tigranes ; Death of Mithridates ; Pompey's Eastern 
Conquests ; Cataline ; Conquest of Gaul ; Caesar ; Death of Crassus ; 
Murder of Pompey; Caesar's Egyptian Campaign; Asiatic Campaign; 
African Campaign; Munda; Casear as a Ruler. 

CHAPTER III. 
The Roman Empire. 

The Second Triumvirate; Mutina; Death of Cicero; The Four Sui- 
cides ; Augustus ; Defeat of Varus ; Arminius ; His Apotheosis ; Ti- 
berius ; Caligula; Claudius; Nero; Arrogance of the Army; Bedriacum; 
The Siege of Jerusalem; Vespasian and Titus; Agricola in Britain; 
Christian Persecutions; Trojan; Hadrian's Opposition to War; A 
"Reign Without Events"; Wars with the Barbarians; The Empire at 
Auction ; A Military Despotism ; A Wall Across Britain ; CaracuUa ; 
Heligabalus ; Serverus a Contrast ; Rivalry Between Maximin and 
Vitellius ; Rapid Fatality in Emperors ; The "Thirty Tyrants" ; Claudius 
II; Aurelian; Diocletian's "Tetrarchy"; Constantine; Fate of the Five 
Cotemporaries ; Julian "The Apostate" ; Protective Policy of Theodo- 
sius; Stilicho; Alaric; Aetius and Boniface; Odoacer. 

CHAPTER IV. 
The Franco-Iberian Peninsula. 

Rome Under the Barbarians ; The Iberians ; Alaric and Athauf ; 
First Sovereigns of Spain; Clovis and the Soldier; Union of the 
Franks; Theoderic; Clotaire ; Fredegunde and Brunehilde; Origin of 

6 



St. Cloud; The Prankish Empire Under Dagobert; Pippin; Charles 
Martel ; Cambrai ; Scissions ; Tours ; Boniface's Labors ; Pippin's 
Donation; Charlemagne; Capture of Verona and Pavia; Conquest o'. 
All Italy; Conquest of the Saxons; Wars in Spain; Death of Row- 
land ; The Empire and Feudalism ; The First Free Public Schools ; 
Fontanetum; The Norse Invasion; Hastings at Paris; The Split of 
the Empire Into Seven Kingdoms; Hugh Capet; Invasion of France 
by Louis III of Germany; Royal Poverty; Tragic Events from 1010 
to 1453; The "Universal Spider" French Wars of the Fifteenth Cen- 
tury; French Religious Wars; French Revolution; Treaty of Pillnitz 
to Restore the Bourbona ; Menin ; Valmy ; Jammappes ; The Summer 
Massacres; The French Republic; The "Reign of Terror"; Assas- 
sination and Executions ; Dunkirk ; Hondschoote ; Napoleon Bona- 
parte; His Rise; Battles of 1797; Marengo; Hohenlinden; Rupture 
of the Amien's Compact ; Austerlitz ; Jena ; Peace of Tilsit ; Junot's 
Defeat in Spain ; Wagram ; Waterloo ; Later French Wars ; The 
Gothic Kingdom; Founding of Aragon; Founding of Portugal; Cor- 
dova; Second City of Europe; Battle of Las Narvas; Wars of 
Charles I; Philip II, Spain's Loss of American Possessions; Ferdi- 
nand III, The Reactionary; Isabella II; War Between Carlists and 
Christians; War with Morocco; King Amadeus; The Republic; Cas- 
telar; Alfonso XII; The War of 1898; Alfonso XIII; Lusitania; 
War the Regular Order ; "The Founder" ; Henry The Navigator ; 
Portugal's Annexation to Spain ; Treaty of Lisbon and The Re-estab- 
lishment of the Kingdom; Yusuf The Centenarian; Aly's Holy War; 
Effect of Wellington's Successes ; Dom Pedro ; The Quadruple Alli- 
ance; Brazil's Influence; The Rebellion of 1910; Recognition of Por- 
tugal as a Republic. 

CHAPTER V. 
The British Isles. 

The Scandinavians; Gormo; Lobrock; Early Traits; Caesar's In- 
vasions; Caractacus ; Druidism ; Boadicea; Constantine in York; 
Danish Invasions ; Alfred ; Edgar ; Sweyn ; Hastings ; Questions of 
Territory; William's Revenge; Rochester Castle; Henry's "Charter 
of Liberties"; Tinchebrai ; "Battle of the Standard"; The Plantagenets ; 
John and Richard ; Lincoln ; Eversham ; Edward I ; The "Mad Parlia- 
ment" ; Simon de Montfort; Effect of the Crusades; The "Model 
Parliament" ; Wallace ; Bannoclcburn ; The Hundred Years War ; 
Crecy; Siege of Calais; Poitiers; Wat Tyler; Shrewsbury; Harfleur; 
Agincourt; Siege of Orleans; Burning of Joan of Arc; Jack Cade; 
"Wars of the Roses" ; St. Albans ; Wakefield ; Bosworth Field ; League 



of Cambrai; The Holy League; Battle of the Spurs; Flodden; "Field 
of the Cloth of Gold"; Capture of Calais; Kingdom of Waldemar II; 
The Union of Calmar; Gustavus Vasa King; Freedom of Elizabeth's 
Reign from War; The "Armada"; The Irish RebelHon; "The Thirty 
Years' War"; James I; The "Gunpowder Plot"; Edgehill ; Naseby; 
War with the Dutch; Monmouth's Rebellion; Charles II; Sedgemoor ; 
168S; Battle of the Boyne; Brutal Customs; "War of the Spanish 
Succession" ; Marlborough ; Blenheim ; Capture of Gibraltar ; Ramilles ; 
Almanza ; Ondenarde ; Malplaquet ; Defeat of Eugene ; Sheriflfmuir ; 
Fontenoy; "The Seven Years' War"; The War of Jenkin's Ear; The 
Austrian Succession; The Invasion of England; Battle of the Nile; 
Trafalgar ; Waterloo ; The Opium War ; The Soudan ; The Boer War. 

CHAPTER VI. 

The Rise of Russia. 

Early Wars; Lipetsk; Kalka; Riazan; Kolomna; Ivan III; Reduc- 
tion of Kazan; Ivan The Terrible; Demitri the Pretender; Capture of 
Azof ; Revolt in Moscow ; Defeat of Razine ; Siege of Convent of 
Solovetski; Peter The Great; Execution of 1,000 Streltsi ; Defeat at 
Narva; Founding of Petrograd; Swedish Repulse at Borysthenes; 
Pultowa; Losses of Lewenhaupt; War of PoHsh Succession; First 
Russian Troops in Germany; Alliance of 1726; Results of Lacy's Cam- 
paign, 1736; Reign of EHzabeth ; Conquest of Finland; Elizabeth and 
Frederick The Great; Defeat of Frederick; Entrance of Berlin by 
the Russians; Death of Peter by Strangling; Catherine II; A Savage 
War; Massacre of Ouman; Partition of Poland; Defeat of Khan of 
Tartars; End of Turkish Rule in Peninsula; New Swedish Consti- 
tution ; Plague at Moscow ; Race War ; Beheading of Pougatchef ; 
Corrupt Peculation; Catherine's Ukase; Turkish War; Austrian Defeat 
at Teinesvar ; Storming of Ismail ; Defeat of Grand Vizier at Matchin ; 
Second Partition of Poland ; Bloody Massacre at Braga ; Increase of 
Russia's Domain ; Eccentric Paul I ; Souvorof's Formulae ; Entrance 
of Milan by Souvorof ; Trebbia ; Defeat at Zurich ; Retreat of Souvo- 
rof ; Mystery of Paul's Death ; French and Russian Treaty ; Austerlitz ; 
Eylau ; Alexander and Napoleon ; Rupture Between Them ; Invasion 
of Russia ; Napoleon's Mistake ; Borodino ; Reception at Moscow ; 
Viasma; Horrors of the Retreat; Settlements; The "Holy Alliance"; 
Declaration of Independence by Greece; Efforts of the Balkan States; 
Metternich's Influence ; The Grand Vizier's Amusements ; Nicholas I ; 
Persian War; Polish Insurrection; Russian Intervention and Seating 
of Francis Joseph; Crimean War; Losses. 



CHAPTER VII. 

Germany and Prussia. 

The "Battle of Winfield"; Idea of the German Empire; War and 
Religion; The Pastime of the Gods; The Goths; Conrad I; Lenzenin; 
Merseburg; Lechfield ; Otto I and the Popes; Henry IV's Fate; The 
Empire and the Church ; The Imperial Ghibellines and Papal Guelphs ; 
Legnano; Bouvines; Beneventum ; The Empire at Auction; The 
Sicilian Vespers; The Cities and The Empire; The Hanseatic League; 
Its Despots and Representatives; Kinds of Crusades; Christian Po- 
land and Its Pagan Neighbors; Teutonic Knights and Holy Wars; 
The Hapsburgs; Election of Rudolf as Emperor; Ottocar's Oath; 
Murchfield ; Worms ; The Archer of Uri ; The Pope at Aveignon ; Fate 
of Henry VII; Muhldorf ; The Pope's Bull; The Diet of Reuse; 
Origin of "Ich Dieu" ; Rienzi ; Tetrarch's Disappointment; Events of 
Charles IV's Reign; The "Black Death"; The Minorites; The Flagel- 
lants; Character of Wenceslaus; Brescia; Sempach ; Hussite Wars; 
Deposal of Three Rival Popes; Rise of Italian Cities; Turkish Inva- 
sion; Adrianople; The Janissaries; Bojazet; Trimour; Angora; Cap- 
ture of Constantinople; Maximilian I; Capture of Milan; Duke Ludo- 
vico; Career of Charles V; Wars with France; Muhlberg; The Val- 
ladolid Commission; Lepanto; The Catholic League; The "Thirty 
Years' War"; Prague; Weisloch; Luther; Lutsen; Rheinfeld; Arras; 
Nordlingen; Sens; Laningen; Terrible Losses; Execution of Hun- 
garian Nobles; Ministers as Galley Slaves; Repulsion of Turks at 
Vienna; The "Shambles of Eperies" ; Burning of Baden and Other 
Cities; Steinkirk ; "Spanish Succession" War; States in Conflict; The 
Hohenzollerns ; Definition of HohenzoUerns ; "The Sandbox of the 
Holy Roman Empire"; The Slav Population of the Roman Empire; 
"The Great Elector"; Attention to His Army; Frederick III; Fred- 
erick William's Frugality; Frederick The Great; Heine's Quatrain; 
Accession of Territory; Bismarck; Result of Victory Over France. 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Causes of This War. 

Expansion of a State; Weakening of a State; Analysis of Causes; 
The Franco-German Rivalry; Alsace-Lorraine; Beginning of Bad 
Feeling; Dictation of Terms by Bismarck; Increase of French Army; 
German Militarism; German Policy; Franco-Russian AlHance; Anglo- 
German Rivalry; Colonial Expansion; Prevention of German Expan- 

9 



sion by British; Germany's Success in Expansion; Africa; Camer- 
bons, New Guinea ; Kiao-Chau ; Germany and England ; Germany and 
Turkey; Rivalry of Markets; Enlargement of Navies; Slav-Teuton 
Rivalry ; Beginning of Cold German Feeling Toward Russia ; Austro- 
German Alliance ; Effect of Balkan Confederation ; Dissolution of 
Balkan League; The Cause; German Aggressiveness; German Popula- 
tion; German World-Policy; Militarism of Germany; German Philoso- 
phers; The Oriental Question; Turkey; Serbia; Bulgaria; Montenegro; 
Greece; Cause of Greco-Turkish War; Italian-Turkish War; Balkan 
Wars; The Cause; Carnegie Commission; Battle of Sarantaporon ; 
King Constantine in Salonica; Fall of Yanina; Bulgarian Successes; 
Servian Victories; Siege of Montenegro; Scutari; The London Treaty; 
Second Balkan War, and the Cause; Defeat of Bulgars by Greeks and 
Serbians ; The Bucharest Treaty ; Connection of the Balkan Wars 
with the European War, and the Cause ; Failure of Russian Diplomacy ; 
Triple AlHance; Triple Entente; Effect on Balkans; Denunciation 
of Treaty by Italy; Immediate Causes of This War; The Assassina- 
tion of the Austrian Heir; The Ultimatum of Austria; General Con- 
cern of the European Powers; Proposals of Sir Edward Grey; Mo- 
bilization of the Great Powers; Illumination of the Spark of Warfare. 

CHAPTER IX. 

Peace with Justice. 

The Goblet of War; Claimant of Justice in War; Necessity of War; 
Nature in Evolution and Suggestions; Theory of War; Man and 
Nature; Man Against Nature; Competitive Struggle Desirable; Mutual 
Struggle Unnecessary in Competition ; The Fittest to Nature ; Goal 
and Prize; Environment and Nature; Warfare Competition Uncalled 
For; Warfare Against Co-operation; A Destructive Element; Unfair 
Test of Worth; Stronger Unnecessarily the Best; War Undesirable; 
Warfare Unnatural ; Co-operation Natural ; Human Development ; 
Fellow-Man, a Productive Agent; Conquest of Nature Through Co- 
operation ; Lack of Co-operation Between Nations ; National Egotism 
as Patriotism; Co-operation of States in Production; Carnegie's Fed- 
eration; Analysis of Union of States; Bond of Legal Machinery; 
Voluntary Adjustment; Freedom of Internal Affairs; Action in Uni- 
son; "A United World"; German System of Government; The Press; 
The Unbelievers of State; Attack on Diplomacy; On Governments; 
On State and Individual; On State and State; Agency Undesirable 
When Injurious to Humanity; Organization with Freedom in Modera- 
tion ; Necessity of Proper Enforcement of Organization ; Spiritual and 

10 



Material Solidarity; War, Exception Rather Than the Rule; Differ- 
ence of Issue of Individual and State; State and Individual; Difference 
in Interest Only; Necessity of Co-operation by State and Individual; 
Individuals as Citizens; Moral Consideration Obligatory on State; 
State as a Reality; Freedom of State from Cause; Encouragement of 
Individual Liberty by States ; State in Favor of Its Member and Other 
States; States as Units of Federation; State a Nationality; Federation 
Powerless Over Internal State Affairs; Union Against Domination; 
Organization in Equal Rights for All Nations; Difference of Cosmo- 
politanisms; Nationalism Proper; Unity; Variety; Loyalty; Solidarity; 
Conclusion of Cosmopolitanism; Nationality; Prevention of War by 
Federation; The Machinery of Federation; A Legislative Assembly; 
A Judicial Tribunal ; An Executive Body ; An International Character ; 
Creation of International Code ; A Federal Army and Navy ; Elimina- 
tion of Arms by the State; The Judgment of the Federal Tribunal; 
Enforcement; Economic Pressure; Armed Force; Time of Action; 
The Argument of Extreme Pacificists ; The Answer ; Bryan, Taft and 
Roosevelt; An Indirect Proceedure; Peace with Justice; Mental Pro- 
cess ; Positive and Negative Measures; Bryan's Proposal; Committees 
of Reconciliation; Complete Disarmament; Operation of Each Meas- 
ure and Its Answer; The Hague Court of Arbitration; Carnegie's 
"The League of Peace"; Roosevelt's Proposal; Extent of Its Value; 
Limitations of Decisions by Court; Freedom of National Affairs from 
Court's Jurisdiction; Honor of a State; President Wilson on the 
Question of Honor; Nationalities Over Other Nationalities; The So- 
lution; Monroe Doctrine; Its Dangers; A United States of the World; 
Educational Movement; Public Opinion; Education of Children in 
International Principles and Sympathy; International Trade and Com- 
merce; Church Work for Peace and Justice; Officialdom and Di- 
plomacy; Conclusion. 



11 



INDEX TO PICTURES 



PAGE 

ALEXANDER THE GREAT 32-^ 

CAESAR 9V 

KING VICTOR EMMANUEL OF ITALY - - 102- 

PRESIDENT POINCARE OF FRANCE - - 118"^ 

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE ISS"^ 

KING GEORGE V OF ENGLAND 146 -^ 

CZAR NICHOLAS OF RUSSIA 172^ 

FRANZ JOSEPH, EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA - 300^ 

KAISER WILHELM, EMPEROR OF GERMANY 224-" 

KING PETER OF SERBIA 238^ 

KING CONSTANTINE XII OF GREECE - - 240' 

KING FERDINAND OF ROUMANIA - - - 244 

KING ALBERT OF BELGIUM - 248 

ANDREW CARNEGIE, "THE PEACE MAN" - 370 
WOODROW WILSON, PRESIDENT OF THE 

UNITED STATES 314^^ 

12 



PREFACE. 

Confronted with the awful spectacle of the European con- 
tinent in the convulsions of war, involving that portion of the 
habitation of man which has made the chief contribution to 
civilization and progress, no person, however neutral in polit- 
ical coloring, can fail to occupy his mind intensely with the 
subject of war. In some sense, war seems to have been, from 
of old, a very important occupation of man; to glance over 
the history of mankind is to go through pages and pages of 
accounts of battles, defeats and victories, conclusions of peace 
and of alliances, and again wars. Now, we would naturally 
like to understand the meaning of this immensely prevalent 
phenomenon, to study it in its origins and effects, so as to 
learn how to combat it. An ill must be studied scientifically, 
through observation, analysis, and inductive and deductive 
manipulation, before it can be treated in practical fashion. 
In the end of such a scientific study of war, this book claims 
. to be a modest contribution, on the one hand, by supplying a 
history of wars on the European Continent, and thus fur- 
nishing a background for observing the phenomenon of 
war, and on the other hand, by undertaking a general dis- 
cussion of war, which takes its start on the observations, and 
connects the phenomenon of war with the topic of the wel- 
fare of humanity, and with the course of the natural laws of 
universal sway. We have conveniently grouped the various 



European countries under six headings of war centers, and 
our historic section takes the form of a resume of the mil- 
itary developments in each of these centers. As it is impos- 
sible to dissociate the military history of a people from its 
political and general developments — instead of presenting 
the series of wars as detached fragments to be studied in 
abstract isolation — we have preferred to traverse the cur- 
rents of war from within the ocean of the national history 
of the peoples, and to observe war upon the background of 
the orderly evolution of the general fortunes of the portion 
of mankind under consideration. 

The resume will show, we hope, how very often wars have 
been waged for no valid reason whatever, but have origin- 
ated from the jealousy of kings and other rulers, from quar- 
rels as to inheritance, and from insignificant misunderstand- 
ings; how the waging of warfare on many occasions has 
been but a game, as it were, in which the nations have par- 
ticipated and in which they sometimes lost and sometimes 
won, but from which they have invariably suffered, and how 
enormous has been the total of humanity sacrificed pitilessly 
on the numerous altars of Mars ; how often wars have been 
internal — in other words, civil wars — resulting in the de- 
struction of the vital energies of the nation or state itself; 
and finally, we hope, our resume will give the correct impres- 
sion that all war is, after all, ci-uil war in that it entails the 
rending by humanity of its own garments of self -preserva- 
tive armor and the crushing within itself of its own vitality. 

But, of course, a house divided against itself cannot stand, 
and humanity is consequently called upon to make some de- 
cision upon the matter both in general and in particular. 
Thus, in our discussion, we join the topic of war with the 
topic of the positive good of mankind, and from this view- 

14 



point, we raise on the one hand the theoretical questions as to 
the nature of the best constitution for the sphere of the mu- 
tual relationship of men and of groups of men and as to 
whether the waging of warfare is implied by this constitu- 
tion, and on the other, the practical question as to the realiza- 
tion of this constitution and — in so far as the plan provides 
against war — of the discovery of the means which will con- 
trol, and, if possible, put an end to war. 

Such are the considerations which we respectfully offer 
to our readers with the intention and desire of contributing 
our own share in the process of the clarification of the is- 
sues and of the ultimate settlement of the problems raised 
by war. 

SoTERios Nicholson. 



15 



CHAPTER I. 

THE GRECIAN PENINSULA. 

Ancient Greece and Byzantine Empire. 

It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to give a history of 
events in Greece arranged in single chronological order, be- 
cause from the point of view of government, the term 
"Greece" is not a singular but a collective name. The terri- 
tory is divided into many parts by natural boundaries, and 
an accurate historian of Greece must subdivide his account 
into at least a hundred distinct chronicles of as many Gre- 
cian states. In such a sketch as the present claims to be, we 
need not enter into such detail; all the same, we will be 
obliged to break the temporal series at a number of points, 
and to some extent, give the history of the different states 
separately. Another point worth mentioning is that a his- 
tory of Ancient Greece must include events which took place 
not only on the Grecian peninsula, at the foot of the Balkans, 
but at Sicily, the coast of Asia Minor, the islands, Mace- 
donia and Epirus as well. Indeed, in a very true sense, the 
lonians on the coast of Asia Minor have been at times better 
Greeks than the Athenians. 



18 WAR OR A UNITED WORI.D 

The oldest elements in ancient Greek life that we know 
are the Minoan and Mycenean civilizations. Then comes the 
Homeric Age, followed by the Dorian Invasion and its wide- 
spread influence. Later we have the age of the tyrants 
(about 650-500 B. C), which is in turn succeeded by the 
epoch of the maturity of the Greeks as well as of their de- 
cline, embracing the Persian and the Peloponnesian Wars, 
and ending with the conquest of Philip (480-338). Lastly, 
we have the age beginning with the career of Alexander and 
ending with the Roman Conquest (336-146). About the 
Minoan and Mycenean civilizations we know very little. No 
written account of the events has come to us, and all our 
information is derived from the discovery of antiquities 
through excavations. The Mycenean Age probably lasted 
between 1600 and 1200 B. C, but the Minoan Age must have 
been of longer stretch, going as far back as 2500 B. C. and 
reaching until the decline of the Mycenean Age. As to the 
epoch that followed the conclusion of these two ages, for a 
number of centuries, we have no historical material, but 
a good deal has come down to us in the form of legends 
and traditions. Thus, we have heard of the Argonautic 
Expedition led by Jason, who, accompanied by fifty other 
heroes, sailed on board the Argo in search of the golden 
fleece, in the direction of the Eastern shores of the Black Sea. 
Then, we have the story of the Seven against Thebes accord- 
ing to which Adrastus, the king of Argos, makes war upon 
Thebes, aided by five military leaders and by Polynices, the 
son of CEdipus, a former king of Thebes, and defeats him. 

Without doubt, the most important of these legends is the 
story of the Siege of Troy, made famous by the poetic genius 
of Homer. Troy is represented as a strong state, Greek in 
character, and occupying territory in Asia Minor, south of 
the Hellespont. The various leaders and heroes of Greece, 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 19 

headed by Agamemnon, king of Mycene, besiege Troy in 
order to avenge the wrong inflicted upon Menelaus, one of 
their number, by Paris, son of Periam, king of Troy, who 
seduced and bore away with him the wife of Menelaus, 
Helen, to his father's city. The siege is reported to have 
lasted ten years (1894-1884) and to have occupied to an 
extreme the attention of the Olympian Gods. Achilles was 
the strongest among the Achaeans, but he withdrew from 
active service, when Agamemnon took away from him his 
fair prize — a maiden girl. After an absence of many years, 
he returned to active participation in the fray. In order to 
avenge the death of his friend Patroclus, killed by Hector, 
Achilles slew Hector, but was himself killed later. The city 
of Troy fell at last through a ruse of Odysseus, the wily, and 
was given over to plunder and loot. The city was burned, 
its men were killed and its women were made the slaves of 
the conquerors. 

Though unquestionably this account is traditional, one 
cannot help thinking that it contains a germ of truth — so 
widely was it believed by the Greeks themselves. Recent 
excavations by Dr. Schliemann in the Troad made this view 
credible owing to the fact that they have disclosed the ruins 
of a large city, in the old site of Ilion. 

The next movement of importance is the Dorian Invasion 
or the Return of the Heraclidae. Homer represents mon- 
archy to be the form of government during the age whose 
accounts he gives in his poems, and yet the historic age of 
Greece (beginning with the eighth century B. C.) dawns 
with oligarchy established in the various states. To explain 
the change we must take account of the Dorian Invasion, 
which is supposed to have taken place toward the end of the 
twelfth century B. C. According to tradition, the descend- 
ants of Heracles, the great hero, who had been previously 



20 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

exiled from Peloponnesus, returned at last at the head of the 
Dorians from Thessaly, and succeeded in conquering most 
of the territory in Peloponnesus. Now, we cannot believe 
that the conquest was effected by so small a number of people 
or in such a short interval as tradition chronicles. Un- 
doubtedly the movement was very wide, and may have taken 
centuries before settling down. At any rate, the Dorian 
migration must have influenced the character and culture of 
the people to a very large extent, involving, as it does, the 
substitution of a rude and hardy civilization for more refined 
customs and manners. 

The Spartans were the most conspicuous descendants of 
the Dorians. According to legend, the prosperity of Sparta 
was secured by the adoption of the constitution invented by 
the great law-giver, Lycurgus. On the whole, the latter is 
represented to have regarded frugality, simplicity and the 
military virtues as the foundation stones of a state's life, and 
upon them did the Spartans base their growth and the fabric 
of their communal activity. After the state had been re- 
formed through the efforts of Lycurgus, it prospered, be- 
came aggressive, and thirsted for conquest. In a short time 
it brought under subjection all the inhabitants of the La- 
conian province, such as had not come, as yet, under the 
influence of the Dorian migration. Then, owing to some 
border troubles, the Spartans fell upon the Messenians and 
waged against them what are known as the first and second 
Messenian Wars (743-723 and 645-631). During the first 
of these two, the Messenians, led by an able ruler, their king, 
Aristodemus, offered stout resistance to the Spartans. After 
continued resistance, the Messenians had to yield and were 
reduced to vassalage, some of them fleeing to other towns. 
Again, after some years, the Messenians took up arms and 
rose in revolt, taking advantage of difficulties and reverses 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 21 

of the Spartans. Both the Messenians and the Spartans 
secured allies for themselves, respectively, from among the 
neighboring states; the former fought valiantly, but finally 
they were forced to yield ; the uprising was crushed and the 
Messenians were reduced to the condition of the Helots. 
The class of Helots, it may be explained, contained the slaves 
of the Spartan people, recruited from the subject population 
of Sparta. 

Thus, Sparta had secured supremacy and her leadership 
was recognized by practically all the states in Peloponnesus. 
But Argos held out, and therefore Argos had to be con- 
quered. The town of Tegea surrendered at about 560 B. C, 
but the city of Argos resisted the encroachments of Sparta 
for a long time. At last, Cleomenes, the Spartan king, de- 
feated the Argives decisively and set fire to the wood into 
which they had fled after the battle, thus destroying the 
larger part of the army. 

In the meantime the age of tyrants had begun in Greece. 
Tyrant was called any ruler who had gained power through 
unconstitutional means, the term having no reference to his 
own inherent virtues or capacity. Periander of Corinth was 
a famous tyrant ; under his rule Corinth attained great pros- 
perity. Dionysius of Syracuse is another well-known tyrant. 
Pesistratus in Athens was a liberal patron of art and cul- 
ture. However good the tyrants may often have been, they 
constituted an irregular element in the life of the Greeks, 
who were a pre-eminently freedom-loving people. Gradually 
the tyrants were overthrown one by one, and democracy re- 
placed the rule of the tyrants. 

Before we proceed further, we may mention that the most 
characteristic element in the government of the Greeks was 
the fact that the states were organized on the basis of cities. 
The city was the unit, each city forming a self-governing, 



22' WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

independent community. Owing to the consequently small 
size of the population of each state, democracy in govern- 
ment could be carried out to perfection ; government did not 
need to be representative, for each citizen could be present 
and partake in the deliberations of the Boule. This extreme 
individualism of the Greeks was one of the chief causes of 
their unsurpassed excellence in almost all forms of culture, 
but in preventing their union into a single nation, it paved 
the way to their decline, through defeat, by more closely 
organized and, hence, from a military point of view, stronger 
races. In fact, there were continual jealousies among the 
city-states, and the federations which they formed were 
never of a lasting character. 

Let us now turn to Athens. This city appears in the clouds 
of tradition, in the seventh century B. C, as governed by an 
oligarchy. In more early times she was under the rule of 
kings, most famous of whom were Theseus and Codrus. 
Solo, in Athenian history, plays the role which Lycurgus 
filled in Spartan history. Solo effected both economic and 
constitutional reforms in Athens and enacted other special 
laws, and then left the city. Upon his return he found that 
his nephew, Pesistratus, was the leader of a revolutionary 
faction. Pesistratus succeeded in becoming a tyrant and 
trampling down the liberties of the city. Twice he was ex- 
pelled and twice he returned, dying at 527 B. C. Of his two 
sons who succeeded him, the one was assassinated, but the 
other continued in power for some time until he was at last 
forced to leave the city. Thus the rule of the tyrants was 
terminated in Athens (510 B. C). In the meantime, under 
the leadership of Cleisthenes, the Athenians became more 
and more democratic, thus arousing the enmity of the oli- 
garchic party within and the opposition of Sparta from 
without. The Spartans started an expedition against Ath- 



THE gre;cian peninsula 23 

ens, but the movement proved abortive and the invading 
army dissolved. But the Athenians were indignant and 
made war against Thebes, which had participated in the 
movement, and, crossing the channel, captured Chalkis. 

We will now turn to the Persian wars which constitute a 
marked and critical period for the history not only of Greece 
but of the whole world. By stemming the tide of the Per- 
sian and Asiatic invasions in general, Greece saved civiliza- 
tion and culture for the western world and secured its final 
predominance. The initial event in this movement is the 
subjugation by Croesus, king of Lydia, an Asiatic power, of 
the Grecian colonies on the coast of Asia Minor. Croesus, 
in his turn, was overpowered by Cyrus, ruler of the Per- 
sians (546 B. C), and the Greek cities in Asia were con- 
quered one by one by the generals of the latter. Later, 
Darius effected the subjugation of the Thracians and of a 
majority of the Panonians. In 499, the Ionian-Greek in- 
habitants of the Asiatic coast towns revolted against the 
Persians, and the Athenians lent them assistance, together 
with the Eretrians, and sacked the city of Sardis. The 
insurrection spread, but Darius at once took up arms and 
crushed the rebellion. The island of Miletus, left in the 
lurch by its allies, was conquered after a siege of three years 
(494 B. C.) and was given over to plunder. After subjuga- 
ting Ionia, Darius decided to take revenge upon the Grecian 
states which had presumed to aid the lonians in their sedi- 
tion ; he equipped a fleet and sent it to fight the Greeks, under 
the command of Mardonius, his son-in-law. But the Thra- 
cians defeated the Persian land-forces, while, on the other 
hand, the fleet was wrecked by a violent storm. But Darius 
was not dismayed ; he equipped another expedition and pro- 
ceeded to punish the Greeks. Eretria was taken and burned 
and thereupon the Persian army crossed over to Attica and 



24 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

landed on Marathon. In the meantime, the Athenians had 
marched on Marathon, where they had encamped and where 
they were reinforced by the Plataeans. Miltiades was ap- 
pointed supreme general and the Athenians, without losing 
time, gave battle to the Persians. The Greeks ran upon the 
foe and routed the two wings of his army ; then they closed 
upon his center and completed the defeat of the Persians by 
putting the whole army to flight (490 B. C). The battle of 
Marathon has been regarded throughout history as the most 
decisive battle of all and it bears witness to the immense 
valor of the Greeks, who, though greatly outnumbered by 
the Persians, succeeded in inflicting upon them a severe 
defeat. The Persians decided thereupon to bear down upon 
Athens, but finding themselves anticipated by Miltiades, re- 
turned to the Ionian shores. At Athens, Themistocles, a 
very wise statesman, realized that the dangers of renewed 
Persian invasions had not passed, and he proceeded to de- 
velop a very strong navy for the Athenians. 

Darius died, while making preparations for another expe- 
dition against the Greeks, and was succeeded by his son 
Xerxes, who resolved to follow in the footsteps of his father. 
The Hellespont was spanned by a bridge and the isthmus at 
Mount Athos was cut by a canal. The Greeks got wind of 
these preparations and assembled together in order to con- 
sider the best means of withstanding the invader. Owing to 
jealousies, not all of them united ; nevertheless, they decided 
to make a stand. The Persians crossed the Hellespont in the 
spring of 480 B. C., and passed over into Thessaly, from 
which, in order to cross down to Central Greece, they had 
to proceed through a narrow pass, called Thermopylae, 
where Leonidas, with three hundred Spartans, and six thou- 
sand other allies, had been stationed to prevent the forcing 
of the passage. After giving effective resistance to the Per- 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 25 

sian army, the Greeks had to yield owing to an act of treach- 
ery by a native Greek who led the Persians over the moun- 
tains and thus caused the Greek army to be caught in the 
rear. The alHes were given time to flee, but Leonidas with 
his three hundred Spartans, together with seven hundred 
Thesbians, refused to retreat and died fighting vahantly and 
upholding his country's honor. Upon being informed of 
the loss of the pass of Thermopylae, the Greek fleet which 
had been offering resistance at Artemisium withdrew to the 
gulf of Salamis and Xerxes followed it there. Battle was 
given, and the Persian fleet was destroyed. Thereupon 
Xerxes returned home, leaving Mardonius with three hun- 
dred thousand men to continue the war. The next year 
(479 B. C.) Mardonius crossed into Beotia, where the 
Greeks, about 110,000 strong, met him at Platea, and, 
chiefly owing to the valor of the Lacedaemonians, put his 
army to rout. On the same day, the Persian naval forces, 
discouraged by their previous reverses, easily yielded to the 
attacks of the Greek fleet and fled, their ships being later 
put to fire and burned. 

Now, since the victory over the Persians had been due 
chiefly to the initiative and valor of the Athenians working 
in the cause of all Hellas, Athens was duly recognized by 
the rest as the leader of all the Greek states. The city, 
which had been burned by the Persians when the Athenian 
fleet had withdrawn to Salamis, was rebuilt and strong walls 
erected around her. At the same time, Athens recognized 
that her power lay on the sea and proceeded to strengthen 
her navy ; in 477 B. C. the confederacy of Delos was formed 
under the supremacy of Athens, embracing the Ionian states, 
the islands of the Aegean and some of the states in Central 
Greece. But Athens was too arrogant; she converted the 
federation into an empire and reduced the confederates to 



26 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

tributaries. Athens continued to grow until, at the age of 
Pericles (459-431 B. C), she reached the zenith of her 
power. Pericles pursued the naval policies of his predeces- 
sors and was instrumental in the building of the Long Walls 
which united Athens with Piraeus and Phaleron. In the 
meantime Sparta had been busy re-establishing her su- 
premacy in Peloponnesus. In 465 B. C. the Helots revolted 
and were joined by the Messenians in their attempt to crush 
the power of Sparta ; the Lacedemonians had a difficult time, 
indeed, in putting down the revolt, which came to be called 
the Third Messenian War. 

Gradually there sprang up a keen rivalry between Sparta 
and Athens. Athens augmented her power by forming an 
alliance with Argos and Megara, subjugating the Aeginetans 
and reducing all the Boeotian towns, except Thebes. But in 
446 B. C. the Boeotians succeeded in freeing themselves 
from the Athenian yoke, and after suffering other reverses, 
as well, Athens concluded a thirty years' truce (445 B. C.) 
with Sparta and her allies, by the provisions of which she 
agreed to forego all her possessions in Peloponnesus and to 
allow the inclusion of Megara into the system of alliance 
with Sparta. 

And now we approach the period of the Peloponnesian 
Wars which resulted in the loss by Athens of her supremacy, 
and even of her power. Trouble and quarrels having arisen 
between Corinth and Athens through various causes for 
which the latter was to blame, the former appealed to 
Sparta for aid and upon getting a favorable response con- 
tinued the war with more impetus. Sparta was aided by 
most of the Peloponnesian states, and by a number of 
other states, including Thebes, beyond the Isthmus. The 
Spartans invaded Attica, and the Athenians prudently with- 
drew into the city, while their fleet ravaged the coast of 



THE GRECIAN PENINSUI.A 27 

Peloponnesus. In the following year, the invasion of Attica 
was repeated and again the homes of the inhabitants were 
made the prey of destructive fires. Moreover a plague 
broke out in Athens to which about one-fourth of her fight- 
ing men, as well as Pericles, her greatest statesman, fell 
victims. In 427 B. C, Plataea fell into the hands of the 
Lacedemonian general, after being besieged for three 
years. In 428 B. C, the city of Mitelyne revolted from 
Athens, but was quickly forced to surrender and as a result 
about one thousand of her nobles were put to death. In 
424, the Athenians invaded Boeotia, but were badly de- 
feated at Delium. Other battles followed within Boeotia, 
in which both the Spartan and the Athenian commanders 
were killed; thereupon negotiations were started and the 
Peace of Nicias ensued arranging for a truce of fifty years. 
Thus ended the first campaign of the war, lasting from 431 
to 421 B. C. 

Alcibiades, an ambitious youth, had now gained the 
ascendency in Athens and carried on those negotiations with 
Sparta which continued after the signing of the peace, with 
regard to various matters. Indeed, the war went on despite 
the truce, Sparta and Athens merely refraining from in- 
vading each other's territory. In 416, the Athenians at- 
tacked and sacked the island of Melos, putting all her male 
inhabitants to death and selling the women and children 
into slavery. Alcibiades, who was indeed very ambitious, 
persuaded the Athenians to undertake an expedition against 
the Dorian city of Syracuse, in Sicily, holding before their 
minds the prospects of an eventual conquest of Italy and 
Africa, and such an aggrandizement of their own power as 
to render the city of Athens supreme all over Greece and 
strong enough to subdue even Sparta. But the Spartans, 
anticipating the plans of the Athenians, sent military forces 
to Syracuse and, meeting the Athenians in battle, virtually 



28 WAR OR A UNITED WORIvD 

annihilated their army and their fleet. On being defeated, 
the Athenian forces had decided to retreat and in fact did 
march into the interior of Sicily. But they were overtaken, 
surrounded, and compelled to surrender. The complete 
failure of the Athenian expedition is due largely to the in- 
competence of its leader, Nicias, who was superstitious 
enough to delay his retreat until all hope for the salvation 
of the army had been lost. 

The destruction of her military forces in Sicily proved 
an irretrievable disaster for Athens. The period between 
421 and the defeat of the Sicilian attack at 413 marks the 
waging of the second Peloponnesian war, and we now 
cross the threshold of the third war, in which Athens, con- 
tinuing in her downward path, finally lost her position as a 
great power in the direction of the policies of Greece. 
Alcibiades had proved a traitor to his own country and made 
himself the tool of the schemes of the Spartans. When 
Chios revolted against the authority of Athens, the Spartans, 
upon his advice, sent an army to aid the rebels. The de- 
flection of Chios was imitated by almost all the rest of the 
Athenian allies in Asia, excepting Samos, but Athens, rising 
superior to the dangers and difficulties which confronted 
her, gathered up all her remaining resources to cope with 
the enemy. The Athenians defeated the Chions (412) and 
recovered Hytilene and Clazomenae. The Persians had in 
the meantime come to the assistance of the Lacedemonians, 
but had later withdrawn from the alliance, thanks to the 
intrigues of Alcibiades, who had lost the confidence of the 
Spartans. Alcibiades, who then succeeded in ingratiating 
himself again upon the Athenians, seized the power and 
was instrumental in replacing the democratic by an oligarchic 
government in the city. The army of the Athenians at 
Samos recalled Alcibiades and gave him the command, 
and the war went on under his leadership. At Cynossema 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 29 

and Abydus the Athenian fleet was victorious over the 
Spartan allies and at Cyzicus, routed the Peloponnesian 
fleet so thoroughly that the Spartans proposed terms of 
peace, which, however, were rejected. For a short time, 
success favored the Athenians, but the Spartans, aided 
by the Persians who had changed front again, equipped 
a new fleet and defeated the Athenians off Notium (407 
B. C); the Spartans were themselves defeated, in their 
turn, by the fleet of the Athenians at Arginusae (406 B. C). 
At last, the next year, the Athenian fleet was surprised by 
Lysander, the Spartan admiral, and, caught unawares, was 
captured at Aegospotami, without being able to strike a 
blow. The victory was far-reaching in results, for Athens 
was rendered thereby virtually powerless to resist Lysander, 
who cut off the supplies of Athens and thus caused a famine 
in the city. He also blockaded Piraeus and laid siege 
to the city; the Athenians suffered from famine so much 
that they were compelled to surrender, and comply with 
Lysander's demands to demolish the fortifications of Piraeus 
and to yield possession of all their ships except twelve. 
Athens also agreed to become a subject ally of Sparta. 
Thus ended the third period of the war, having lasted from 
413 to 404 B. C, and indeed the whole Peloponnesian war 
itself, after having lasted for the space of twenty-seven 
years. 

During the generation following the completion of the 
war. Sparta was supreme in Greece, and instead of the 
democratic constitutions, oligarchic governments were estab- 
lished over the various states. At about this time (401) 
the Spartans, in order to show their gratitude to the Persians 
for their assistance, sent an army of 10,000 to help Cyrus 
seize the throne from his brother Artaxerxes. But Cyrus 
was defeated and the Greek generals were all slain. Upon 
this, the Greeks chose new generals, including Xenophon, 



30 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

who later became the famous historian of the expedition, 
and began their march home, and after a most difficult 
journey reached the Black Sea. The Spartans later under- 
took incursions into Asia Minor, defeated the Persians 
under Tisaphernes, and ravaged the conquered territory. 
But xA.gesilaus, the king of Sparta who was in command of 
the expedition, was obliged to return home where troubles 
were brewing, in order to save his native country from the 
dangers threatening it from closer quarters. 

The Persians who had perceived the growing disaffection 
of the Greek states at the progress and prosperity of Sparta 
sent over delegates to Greece to bribe the states there into 
rising up against Sparta. Athens formed an alliance with 
Thebes, her ancient enemy, and the combination was further 
enlarged by the accession of Corinth and Argos to the group. 
Whereas at first, hostilities had been confined within the 
borders of Boeotia, now, the field of war was transferred 
to Peloponnesus, and what is known as the Corinthian war 
ensued. It was when the Spartans had realized their danger 
from the side of the new alliance that they saw fit to recall 
Agesilaus. At Corinth (394) the Lacedemonians were suc- 
cessful, but at Cuidus their fleet was defeated. The Theban 
allies assisted by the Persians continued the war with vary- 
ing fortunes, with the result that Sparta lost all her mari- 
time empire. The Spartans again acquired a strong fleet, 
and the Athenians depressed at the lack of supplies of 
corn from the Black Sea were loth for peace. In fact, all 
Greece had tired of the war and was ready to listen to 
proposals for peace. Negotiations were begun, and the 
infamous Peace of Antalcidas was concluded (387 B. C.) 
by which Greece agreed to play into the hands of Persia. 
All the Greek cities in Asia were surrendered to the latter, 
and the rest of the Greek cities were made independent. 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 31 

and the alliance among them broken. This was just what 
Sparta desired, for with the dissolution of the Boeotian 
league, no formidable barrier remained against her aggres- 
sive schemes. By a surprise attack, Sparta seized the citadel 
of Thebes, dissolved the Olynthian confederacy, which was 
the union of a number of Macedonian and Greek towns, and 
destroyed the city of Mantinea. The other Greek states 
became indignant and a movement began in resistance to 
Sparta which resulted in the ultimate overthrow of Spartan 
hegemony over Greece. 

At this time Pelopidas, a Theban exile, re-entered his 
native city, instigated a revolt against the Lacedaemonian 
garrison, and freed Thebes from the rule of the latter; 
under the leadership of Epaminondas, a friend of the 
former, the Boeotian league was revived, and Athens was 
encouraged to form a new confederacy. The Spartans, 
who meant to prevent the growth of Theban power, met 
Epaminondas, the commander of the Thebans, at Leuctra 
(371) and suffered a complete defeat. Epaminondas pro- 
ceeded to Laconia and ravaged the province, and then lib- 
erated the Messenians, but when in 362 he again led an 
expedition into Peloponnesus, he met the Spartans at Man- 
tinea, and though victorious, was killed in the battle. With 
the death of Epaminondas, the power of Thebes came prac- 
tically to an end. 

We must consider now, before we proceed further, the 
rise of Macedonia, a country whose fortunes began to mingle 
very intricately with the fortunes of Greece proper. The 
Macedonians were of Hellenic stock, a fact which was recog- 
nized by the other Greeks, and their history becomes im- 
portant for our purpose at the period of the rule of Philip 
II (359-336 B. C.). When Philip ascended the throne, 
he was consumed with the ambition of achieving conquests 
in Greece, and to realize this ambition, he began to make 



32 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

encroachments upon Greek territory. First, he seized Am- 
phipoHs, the city which was the gateway of Macedonia into 
Thrace, and thus succeeded in gaining much territory in 
Thrace. Then Philip seized the city of Olynthus (348 
B. C.) and conquered all the cities (members of the Chal- 
cidian confederacy), which were her allies. He succeeded 
in participating in the affairs of continental Greece by brib- 
ing liberally the Greek politicians, especially those of Athens. 
Philip's aid was requested and given during the so-called 
Sacred War against the Phocians. who had robbed the tem- 
ple of Apollo. Philip had difficulties in the start, but finally 
compelled the Phocians to yield to punishment. A second 
and a third Sacred War broke out, and Philip was again 
called to administer punishment. Philip at once used this 
opportunity as a means of re-entering continental Greece 
and invading Attica. Athens perceived her imminent danger 
and, securing Thebes as an ally, sent a force to fight Philip. 
At Chaeronea (338) Philip defeated the allied army, and 
through this victory secured for himself ascendancy over 
all Greece. At Corinth a convention of all the Greek states 
(except Sparta) was called by him, and plans were made to 
make a general recruit of forces from all Greece and from 
Macedonia in order to invade and subjugate Persia. But 
when the expedition was made ready and the march had 
just begun, Philip was assassinated and Alexander, his son, 
succeeded to his authority. 

Alexander was quite young when he ascended the kingly 
throne and was quite young when he died, but his short 
career was sufficient to stamp him in history as one of the 
greatest military generals of mankind. At the death of 
Philip, the Greek cities thought they could regain their in- 
dependence and started movements to that effect, but Alex- 
ander was not to be outwitted; he quickly marched into 
Greece, suppressed all rebellious action and secured from the 




ALEXANDER THE GREAT 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 33 

Grecian states recognition of his suzerainty. At 334 B. C, 
he was ready to march at the head of the expedition, equip- 
ped by his father, for the conquest of Persia, after having 
crushed a new revolt in Thebes and having razed the city 
to the ground. He crossed the Hellespont, marched to the 
northeast and met the Persian army on the farther bank of 
the river Granicus. Alexander, not to be daunted, ordered 
his cavalry to cross the river, and he immediately followed 
upon their heels. There, his forces, inspired by enthusiasm 
at the example of his own valor, charged furiously at the 
enemy, and routed him. 

The gateway into Asia Minor was now open, and city 
after city fell into the hands of the youthful commander. 
Some states resisted, indeed, but they were quickly subdued. 
First the west and then the south were overrun; the city of 
Halicamassus, proving obstinate, was razed to the ground. 
As winter was approaching, Alexander sent a small part 
of the army back, and then commenced the task of sub- 
duing the provinces of Caria, Lycia, and Pamphulia, a task 
which he successfully accomplished. On reaching Gordium 
in Phrygia, he was joined by recruits from Greece, and in 
the spring of 333 B. C. he resumed his march. He de- 
scended into Cilicia, proceeded along the Mediterranean 
coast, and on the plain of Issus, at the northeast corner of 
the Mediterranean, he met a Persian army, said to have con- 
sisted of 600,000 men, commanded by Darius in person. 
The position was too small and narrow in extent to allow 
free deployment for the army of Darius, and Alexander, 
availing himself of this disadvantage of the enemy, charged 
and routed the opposing host, which fled precipitantly, ac- 
companied by Darius, its king. 

Alexander did not at once continue his march into the 
empire, but turned southward in order to subdue Phoenicia. 



34 WAR OR A UNITED WORIvD 

The inhabitants of Sidon welcomed him readily, but Tyrus 
refused him entrance within its walls. Thereupon, Alex- 
ander laid siege to the city and after an effort of seven 
months succeeded in forcing his entrance into the besieged 
city. Thence, Alexander marched in the direction of Egypt; 
Palestine and Philistia surrendered, and Gaza, which of- 
fered resistance, was taken and its inhabitants sold as slaves. 
He marched through Egypt and won the respect of the in- 
habitants by evincing reverence for their religious tenets. 
At the mouth of the western branch of the river Nile he 
founded the city of Alexandria, which later gained much 
prominence in commerce and learning. From the new city, 
Alexander set out to visit the oracle of Ammon in the heart 
of the desert of Libya, and the prestige which he thus gained 
he put to good use in securing from the natives and his fol- 
lowers the devotion normally directed to a divinity. Leav- 
ing Egypt, he resumed his invasion of Persia, and at Phoe- 
nicia rejected proposals of peace, on the part of Darius. 
Marching through Syria, he crossed the rivers Euphrates 
and Tigris, and, after a four days' march, came upon the 
enemy's cavalry. Darius had encamped with his whole army 
upon the plain of Arbela near the village of Gaugamela, and, 
though Alexander had only 40,000 foot and 7,000 cavalry, 
he charged the immense host of Darius and scattered it 
(331 B. C). The battle of Arbela has been rightly re- 
garded as one of the decisive battles in history, inasmuch as 
it sealed the overthrow of the dominion of Asiatic power. 
Alexander, flushed with his victory, marched into Babylon 
and was acclaimed by the population, which met him with 
open arms; he showed himself very tolerant toward the re- 
ligious practices of the people and even participated in them, 
thus in general gaining the esteem and securing the allegi- 
ance of the inhabitants of the territories which he aimed to 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 35 

subdue. From Babylon, Alexander proceeded to Susa and 
Persepolis and took possession of the vast treasures of the 
Persian government and king, and thence he set out in pur- 
suit of Darius. The latter, who had taken refuge in flight, 
was assassinated by Bessus, one of his satraps, and Alex- 
ander caught up with Darius only to find him dead. 

Alexander was still thirsty for conquest and urged his 
army toward the east. He subdued the northern and eastern 
provinces of Persia, namely, Bactria and Sogdeana. While 
thus engaged in conquests, Alexander founded numerous 
cities and peopled them with captives, with fugitives from 
the conquered territory, and with his own warriors. Leav- 
ing Bactria (327 B. C.) Alexander crossed the river Indus 
and began a campaign of invasion into India. He did not 
have serious difficulty in bringing the various provinces into 
subjection; Porus, the Indian king, who was the only one 
to offer serious resistance, was captured, but was given back 
his kingdom, though as subject to the dominion of Mace- 
donia. From the banks of the river Hydaspes, Alexander 
proceeded and captured the city of Sangala. By this time, 
his soldiers had become weary of continued marches through 
strange lands, and they refused to go forward. Alexander 
was obliged to yield, in spite of his passionate desire to ex- 
tend his conquests to the Ganges. So Alexander embarked 
on board a large fleet and proceeded to sail down the river 
Indus. After a trip of several months, the mouth of the 
river was reached; at this point Alexander dispatched his 
general, Nearchus, to sail along the coast of the Persian gulf 
in order to discover some opening of the river Euphrates, 
and thus find out whether there was any sea route connect- 
ing the Indus with the Euphrates, and he himself marched 
to the west through what is known as Beluchistan. On 
reaching Carmania he was rejoined by Nearchus, who gave 



36 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

him the joyful news of the successful completion of the 
voyage and of the existence of a maritime route connecting 
the West with the East. 

Upon his return, Alexander decided to make Babylon the 
capital of his now immense empire. But his Macedonian 
veterans were displeased with his plans to incorporate Asi- 
atics into his army, and also with his own affectation of the 
manners of an Eastern monarch, and broke out in open 
mutiny. Alexander succeeded in bringing them into better 
humor and effected a reconciliation, an event which he sub- 
sequently celebrated by a magnificent banquet. While oc- 
cupied with the consideration of grandiose projects for the 
administration and aggrandizement of his new empire, Alex- 
ander was seized with fever and died at Babylon (323 B. 
C), when only thirty-two years of age. The principal 
achievements of his career consisted in the subjugation of 
Persia to Greek authority, in the ensuring of a communica- 
tion between the East and the West, and in the spreading of 
Hellenic culture throughout the then known world. 

As there was no one who possessed enough force of char- 
acter and genius to follow in the steps of Alexander, the em- 
pire was broken up and divided among numerous success- 
ors. Before proceeding, let us mention that during Alex- 
ander's absence from Europe, Sparta had risen in revolt, to- 
gether with other Peloponnesian states, but had been finally 
defeated in battle and forced to yield and recognize once 
more the supremacy of Macedonian rule. At the death of 
Alexander, Athens determined to secure independence, and, 
getting other northern states to join her, she equipped an 
army and commenced military operations against the Mace- 
donian generals in Greece. These operations have made up 
what is called the Lamian war. Near Crannon, in Thessaly, 
Antipater, who had succeeded Alexander with respect to the 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 37 

government of Greece, inflicted a decisive defeat upon the 
forces of the allies (322 B. C), and one by one all the allied 
states were forced to submit and to lay down their arms. 
The alliance thus being broken, Athens was left alone and 
at the mercy of the victor, and she had to comply with all 
the severe terms of the latter. 

We need not follow the fortunes of the various parts of 
Alexander's empire, for we are concerned here with the de- 
velopments only as they occurred in Grecian territory. The 
lands in Asia Minor were joined to the kingdom of Syria, 
and Greece, together with Macedonia, were given over to 
Antipater and Craterus, both of whom, as we have just seen, 
were confronted with numerous obstacles from the very 
start of their reign. The years following the death of Alex- 
ander were full of events in Greece and of military opera- 
tions in conjunction with or against the Macedonian rulers. 
Greece changed rulers a number of times, but the vicissitudes 
of the fortunes of the latter have for us no special interest 
in this connection. In 279 B. C, the Gauls invaded Rome 
and after marching through Macedonia forced the pass of 
Thermopylae and attempted to loot the Temple of Apollo at 
Delphi. According to tradition, the God intervened, and the 
Gauls, having lost their leader, returned to Thrace. 

While under the feet of Macedonian authority, a confed- 
eration was formed in Greece, named the Achaean League, 
including the Peloponnesian cities. Aratus was the most 
important of the leaders of the league; he increased its 
strength until he became confronted by the growing power 
of Sparta. A rivalry sprang up and Sparta was finally con- 
quered. Another confederacy was the Aetolian League, es- 
tablished about 280 B. C. and made up of the tribes of cen- 
tral Greece. When the Romans conquered Macedonia, they 
seem to have dissolved the league. The Achaean League 



38 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

survived the death of its rival, with whom, indeed, it had 
waged a number of wars, and continued under the protec- 
tion of the Romans until it added a number of other states, 
including Sparta, to its original constituents. Later, the 
Achaeans became enemies of the Romans because of the un- 
just treatment which a thousand of their leading men had 
received at the hands of the latter, and began to incite their 
countrymen to war. But with the siege and occupation of 
Corinth (by Mummuius, the Roman general, in 146 B. C.) 
the power of the league came to an end. Generally speaking, 
v^ith the event of the fall of Corinth all Greece came under 
the rule of Rome. 

From 323 to 146 B. C. is the interval which elapsed be- 
tween the death of Alexander and the conquest of Greece 
by the Romans. Now begins the interval during which 
Greece continued under the rule of the Romans up to the 
time of Constantine, the Roman Emperor who inaugurated 
the Byzantine Empire in the East. When the Achaean 
League had suffered dissolution, Greece was recognized as a 
Roman province. The governor of Macedonia was en- 
trusted with the administration of the affairs of Greece, and 
the Greeks who were aware of the futility of measures of 
resistance acquiesced in the arrangement. Not many events 
of military importance occurred during the period, inasmuch 
as the center of gravity had shifted from Macedonia as well 
as from Greece to Rome. But Greece played its part in the 
development of rivalries between various Roman leaders. 
One point worthy of notice is the siding of the Greek states 
with Mithridates during the Mithridatic war (88-89 B. C), 
in which Rome constituted the other belligerent party. 
Greece suffered for its intervention very severely. The 
Roman general, Cornelius Sulla, confiscated a good deal of 
property in Greece and punished the disloyal communities; 



THE GRECIAN PENINSUI^A 39 

moreover, owing to the protracted campaigns, Greece was 
left in a devastated condition. The conflict between Julius 
Caesar and Pompey, which determined the final supremacy 
of the former over the latter with respect to the destinies of 
Rome, furnished another episode during which Greece 
played a part. In effect, the Greeks provided Pompey with 
a large part of his fleet, and when, in 48 B. C., the decisive 
battle was fought between the two great opponents upon the 
field of Pharsala on Greek territory, the natives contributed 
to both armies through extensive requisitions made upon 
them. After Pompey 's defeat, the whole country fell into 
the power of Caesar; the latter, however, proved lenient on 
the whole, except with respect to individual cities. Again, 
when Caesar was assassinated, and the conspirators at- 
tempted to seize the power, Greece took the side of the latter, 
Brutus particularly, but she was really too weak to render 
any considerable assistance (43 B. C). Greece also suf- 
fered from a number of wars, in which she did not directly 
participate, by being called upon to defray their expenses, so 
that the country became financially exhausted, especially 
during the time of Mark Antony. 

During the reign of Augustus, all Greece was converted 
into the province of Achaea, excepting Thessaly, which, to- 
gether with Macedonia, made up another province. Later, 
the danger from foreign invasions was renewed ; in 175 A. 
D. there was one incursion, which, however, proved unsuc- 
cessful; in 253, the inhabitants of Thessalonica averted an- 
other projected attack through determined resistance, but 
in 267-268, hordes of Goths invaded the territory and cap- 
tured Athens; finally Attic soldiers, assisted by a Roman 
fleet, succeeded in repelling and destroying the invaders. 

With the establishment of Byzantium as the capital of the 
western division of the Roman Empire in 330 A. D., a new 



40 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

historical era was inaugurated. The mantle of Hellenism fell 
upon the shoulders of the newly founded institution popu- 
larly known as the Byzantine Empire (more correctly 
termed Later Roman Empire), and we can follow the for- 
tunes of the Hellenic spirit more accurately in tracing the 
history of the above-mentioned Byzantine Empire. From 
now on, therefore, the field of our interest is shifted from 
the territory of Greece, as such, to the country embraced at 
first under the sway of Constantine I, and later under the 
rule of the various Byzantine emperors. The period now 
under observation begins with 323 A. D. and ends in the 
3'ear 1453, when Constantinople fell into the hands of the 
Moslem invaders and the empire was dissolved. Whereas 
before Athens or Sparta occupied the center of attention as 
exponents of the Greek spirit and culture, now Constanti- 
nople assumes prominence and pre-eminence ; consequently a 
word about the latter city will not be amiss. 

The city of Byzantium was founded in the seventh cen- 
tury before Christ by Dorian settlers from the state of 
Megara. The city was so fortunate in its location that it 
could not fail to play a very important role in the drama of 
the life of Eastern Europe. Many times the state of Byzan- 
tium fell into the hands of the enemy, c. g., into those of 
Persia and later into those of Alexander, forming in the case 
of the latter, part of the great Macedonian Empire. Later, 
after Byzantium had been incorporated into the Roman 
Empire, there was an occasion when it resisted Roman rule 
so violently that the emperor had to appear personally to 
punish the resistance of the town, with the result that the 
garrison of the latter was cut to pieces and the town itself 
deprived of all municipal privileges. When in 323 A. D. 
war broke out between Constantine, the emperor of the West, 
and Licinius, the latter took refuge in Byzantium and there 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 41 

made a desperate stand. After a siege of many months, 
the city surrendered and the cause of Constantine became 
supreme. Constantine in the meantime decided that it was 
necessary to estabhsh a new capital in the East and his choice 
fell upon Byzantium, but the name was changed, in honor of 
the Emperor, to Constantinople. The event of chief im- 
portance during the reign of Constantine was the recognition 
of Christianity as the official religion. 

After the death of Constantine, the three sons of the em- 
peror, Constand, Constantius, and Constantine, divided the 
whole empire among themselves, but quarreled in the pro- 
cess so that at the end of sixteen years, Constantine was 
left master of the whole territory. During his reign, Con- 
stantine was occupied with fighting, ceaselessly, German 
tribes in the West and the Persians in the East. In fact 
the whole life of the Byzantine Empire may be correctly 
viewed as a ceaseless warfare against Asiatic powers, 
namely, Persia, the Saracens, and the Turks. The Byzan- 
tine Empire arose at the time when the currents of Asia 
began to gain momentum and to overflow into Europe, 
and it was the function of the Byzantine Empire to inter- 
cept these incursions until the periods when Western culture 
became secure and crystallized into a state which made it 
immune from the result of foreign admixture. The reign 
of Julian — who succeeded Constantine — was marked by simi- 
lar wars against the Germans and the Persians. When in 
372 the Huns burst into Europe, and into the lands which 
border the Black Sea, the native inhabitants were overcome 
with fright and fled before the advance of the invaders. The 
Visigoths, particularly, begged the Roman Emperor to be 
allowed to cross the Danube, in order to escape the danger 
from the Huns. They were granted the permission but 
were later illtreated by the Romans and a war broke out. 
In the battle of Adrianople, the Roman Empire suffered 



42 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

complete defeat at the hands of the Goths and the em- 
peror (who was Valens at this period) was left killed on 
the battlefield. The Goths bore down from Adrianople to 
Constantinople, but, dismayed by the sight of the strong 
fortifications of the city, refrained from attack. Theodosius, 
who succeeded Valens on the throne, made peace with the 
Goths and agreed to allow them to settle on Thracian ter- 
ritory and to introduce into his armies their chiefs with 
their companies of warriors. This was indeed a very dan- 
gerous experiment, for, by giving the Goths military author- 
ity it resulted in putting the empire into the hands of the 
barbarians. When Theodosius died and the empire fell into 
the hands of weaker successors, troubles began at once. 
The Western Roman Empire largely fell into the hands of 
the Teutons, and even Constantinople was in danger. Never- 
theless the Eastern Byzantine Empire was saved, although 
the Western Empire succumbed to the attacks of the Teu- 
tons — a fact which evidences the superior vitality of the 
former. 

Arcadius, a feeble emperor, died in 408 A. D., and was 
succeeded by Theodosius II. His reign was quiet, disturbed 
only by a short war with the Persians, and a longer one with 
Attila, who, at the head of the Huns, ravaged Europe for 
some time. It was during the reigns of Leo I (456-474), 
Zeno (474-491) and Anastasius (491-518) that the Roman 
Empire was finally extinguished in the West, and fortu- 
nately the above-mentioned emperors guided the fortunes of 
the Eastern Empire very wisely during those troublous 
times. Zeno had considerable trouble with the Ostrogoths, 
and the latter were conciliated only when offered the chance 
to conquer and possess Italy. 

Anastasius was succeeded by Justinian, who has been 
termed "the Great." Justinian was fortunate in being as- 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 43 

sisted by Belissarius, a really great general. The latter, in 
533, sailed from Constantinople for the conquest of the Van- 
dal kingdom in Africa — a feat which he achieved in a single 
and short campaign. Justinian, satisfied with the winning 
of Africa, determined upon the conquest of Italy. This un- 
dertaking was more difficult, but Belissarius readily entered 
upon it in 535, subdued Sicily and Naples, and in 536 en- 
tered Rome. This campaign was ended in 554, by Narses, 
another able general, who restored the whole of Italy to the 
Empire. In the meantime, the southern part of Spain was 
wrested from the power of the Visigoths. But the latter 
years of Justinian's reign were clouded with many misfor- 
tunes. Slavs, Bulgarians and Germans ravaged various 
provinces, and the empire had to bear the strain of wars with 
the Persians and with the Goths at the same time. After 
the death of Justinian, the empire was attacked by enemies 
on three sides; by the Lombards in Italy, the Slavs and 
Avars in the Balkans, and the Persians in the East. The 
former conquered Italy and the second took possession of 
Pannonia and Dacia. The Slavs occupied a large part of 
Macedonia and penetrated into the heart of Peloponnesus, 
where they settled. On the other hand, the struggle of the 
empire with Persia was uncompromising. During the reign 
of Phocas, the Persians overran the eastern provinces and 
the ruin of the empire was almost complete. Antioch and 
Damascus among the great cities, and Egypt among the 
provinces, were conquered, and in 614 Jerusalem was de- 
stroyed. Heraclius, who succeeded Phocas, proved a much 
more competent emperor. He reorganized the army, de- 
feated the Persian forces in a series of great battles, and 
ultimately broke the power of Persia. Thus the empire was 
restored and the lost provinces were recovered. But during 
the latter years of the reign of Heraclius, a new danger ap- 



44 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

peared in the shape of the invasions of the Saracens. Con- 
stantinople was besieged twice ; once in 673-677, and a sec- 
ond time, at the accession of Leo III, when the city was be- 
sieged by land and sea for a year (717-718). Both times 
the city resisted effectively, and Europe was saved from 
Moslem aggression. 

The reign of Leo III opens a new period, during which 
the government was reorganized and the empire established 
on new foundations. Following Leo's reign, for a period of 
a hundred and twenty-five years, the Byzantine Empire en- 
joyed its golden age. Later, up to the middle of the tenth 
century, the situation was full of operations against the Mos- 
lems, consisting of expeditions by the one against the terri- 
tories of the other and captures of fortresses. In 826 the 
island of Crete was conquered by the Moslems and Sicily by 
the Saracens of Africa. Basil I, who ascended the throne in 
867, pursued an energetic policy with respect to the West, 
wresting south Italy from the Saracens and depriving the 
Lombards of their dominion in the Adriatic. Leo VI, how- 
ever, lost considerable territory to the Saracens, but in 961 
Nicephorus Phocas regained Crete and then Cilicia and part 
of Syria as well. John Zimisces, who followed Phocas, is 
remembered by his victory in the battle at Silistria over the 
Russians who had invaded the Balkan peninsula. Basil II, 
who succeeded him, subjugated the various Balkan provinces, 
and especially all eastern and western Bulgaria, establishing 
in this way Greek domination over the Slavs. Thereupon, 
he turned his attention to the eastern frontier and conquered 
a number of Armenian provinces. The successors of Basil 
were unworthy of the throne and lost most of the provinces 
which he had gained. Some towns in Syria were lost during 
the reign of the Romans, but later, under Michael the Paph- 
lagonian, the Saracens in Syria were beaten back and a 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 45 

Bulgarian rebellion was suppressed. But Serbia was lost to 
the empire, and toward the end of the eleventh century a 
new foe began to confront the Byzantines, namely, the 
Seljuk Turks. These had penetrated Bagdad and overrun 
Armenia, and at the decisive battle of Manzekert (1071) 
gained a great victory over the forces of Romanus, the By- 
zantine emperor, and, indeed, captured the emperor himself. 
After this disaster, Asia Minor was lost, and the emperors 
who followed proved unable to stem the tide of demoraliza- 
tion and decay. 

But the appearance of Alexius Comnenus on the scene 
changed the situation. The Normans had already seized 
South Italy and seemed to be on the verge of extending their 
conquests. In 1081 the Normans laid siege to Durazzo on 
the eastern shores of the Adriatic and defeated Comnenus, 
who had hastened to the assistance of the native population. 
Durazzo fell and the Normans overran Macedonia and de- 
scended into Thessaly, but were finally defeated by the Em- 
peror at Larissa and forced back. Comnenus was compelled 
at the same time to face the danger coming from the side of 
the Turks; the latter were assaulting Asia Minor, and Com- 
nenus sought aid from western Europe. The European 
states contributed a large number of men, who began de- 
scending toward the East and proclaiming a crusade against 
the Moslems; by the assistance of these Crusaders, Com- 
nenus succeeded in securing again the city of Nicaea and 
many of the provinces of Asia Minor. The Crusaders pro- 
ceeded to Syria and captured Antioch, but as Comnenus had 
failed to assist them in the siege, they refused to cede the 
city to him, but on the contrary, established new Prankish 
principalities in Syria and the Kingdom of Jerusalem as 
well. 

John, the son of Alexius Comnenus, continued to advance 



46 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

in Asia at the expense of the Turks. He reduced the prov- 
inces of Cilicia, Pisidia, and Pontus, and then attacked the 
Franks in Syria, forcing them to pay him tribute, but achiev- 
ing no real conquest. Manuel, the son of John, engaged 
in a whole series of wars which weakened the economic 
foundations of the Empire. The most important event im- 
mediately following is the Latin conquest of Constantinople. 
During the reign of the two Angeli brothers, the empire 
deteriorated both externally and internally. Cyprus and 
Bulgaria were lost after prolonged wars; in 1203, the Cru- 
saders, restless for adventures, were requested by Alexius 
Angelus, an exiled prince, to rescue his father from the 
clutches of the emperor, Alexius III. Fascinated by the 
prospects of Byzantine gold, the Latin Crusaders undertook 
an expedition, crossed the Dardanelles and laid siege to 
Constantinople. The emperor did not oppose their advance, 
because he trusted to the strength of his fortifications. But 
his expectations were disappointed and the Venetians 
stormed the walls and captured the city. But young Alexius, 
who now ascended the throne, did not fulfill his pledges to 
the Crusaders, and the latter, enraged, made a plot to put 
an end to the Byzantine Empire. They captured the city 
for a second time and sacked it ; then, they set to partition- 
ing the Empire among themselves. The Byzantine aristoc- 
racy at this time rallied at Nicaea and in 1206 elected Theo- 
dore Lascaris, from the imperial line, as emperor. His 
kingdom grew and in 1261 the emperor Michael Paleologus 
captured the city of Constantinople from the Latins. But 
Michael never recovered Northern Thrace and Macedonia, 
both of which had fallen into the power of the Bulgarians, 
nor Albania; Greece proper, too, remained outside his 
dominion. 

Toward the end of the thirteenth century, trouble began 
with the Ottoman Turks. The latter, failing at first in their 



THE GRECIAN PENINSULA 47 

attempt to storm the walls of either Constantinople or of 
Adrianople, ravaged Macedonia and Thessaly and conquered 
Greece. At about the same time, the provinces in Asia Minor 
were finally lost by the Byzantines, having fallen into the 
hands of the Seljuk Turks. The Ottomans operated in 
the borderland of Bithynia and Mysia and captured the city 
of Brusa (1326), after a siege which lasted ten years. In 
the meantime, the Servian power was on the ascent, and in 
1330 the Servians crushed the Bulgarians. But in 1387 
the Servian power in its turn was crushed by the Ottomans, 
and the latter were now left in practically sole possession 
of the field. Thrace had been captured a little earlier and 
a defeat of the Byzantines at Adrianople at 1361 left the 
emperor powerless and at the mercy of the Ottoman invader. 
Murad, sultan of the Ottomans, extended his borders to the 
Balkans in the north, annexed large territory in Asia Minor 
from the Seljuks and made John Paleologus, the Byzantine 
Emperor, his vassal. Murad had had the chance of attack- 
ing Constantinople, just after his victory at Adrianople, 
but had not used the chance. But nine years later, Moham- 
med, the Conqueror, his successor, marched toward Con- 
stantinople and laid siege to the city in the spring of 1453, 
with an army of 150,000. The emperor, Constantine XI, 
possessed few men under his control ; however, two Genoese 
vessels arrived with 400 cuirassiers, from outside, and more- 
over the resident foreigners contributed to the best of their 
ability in the resistance against the enemy. But opposition 
was unavailing; the walls were stormed, Constantine was 
killed, and the city was captured (May 30, 1453). The 
fall of Constantinople was at the same time the last act in 
the dissolution of the Byzantine Empire. Thereafter, author- 
ity passed completely into the hands of the Ottoman Empire. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE ITALIAN PENINSULA. 

Certain resemblances are noticeable between the develop- 
ment of the first and second war centers of Europe. In 
both peninsulas there were a good many different tribes of 
various races and forms of speech before they became 
welded together into larger bodies ; so that their early con- 
flicts for supremacy were much alike, as were the political 
changes finally resulting in the dominancy of a single tribe. 
Their religious ideas were much the same — idealizations of 
the forces of nature, differing chiefly in the names assumed 
for the different gods and goddesses. In both, too, political 
leaders arose with similar ambitions, aims and purposes; 
and the dominant power in each peninsula passed through 
similar stages of struggle, supremacy, decay, and dissolution. 

In beginning the historical sketch, we will have to refer 
to mythical tradition to a large extent. 

More than four centuries before the brothers Romulus 
and Remus had been even suckled by the wolf, the brazen 
statue of which now stands in the city of Rome, one Aeneas, 
a Trojan hero, is said to have escaped after the capture of 
Troy, and, guided by the star of his mother Venus, to have 
landed on the western shore of Italy with a band of Trojans, 
where he founded the kingdom of Latium and where the 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 49 

omens assured him a great empire would be developed. 
After some three centuries had passed, in the fifteenth gen- 
eration of descendants, one Amulius usurped the throne 
of his brother Numitor ; and to make his line the more secure, 
the usurper forced his brother's daughter, Rhea Silvia, to 
become a vestal virgin under a vow of chastity. But Mars, 
the god of war, indignant at such treachery, seems to have 
taken an interest in the matter, and Rhea Silvia became the 
mother of twin boys, Romulus and Remus. Unfortunately 
the wicked Amulius had the mother slain or thrown into 
prison and the infants set afloat in a trough on the Tiber. 
But the Tiber overflowed its banks, and, the cradle catching 
in the roots of a wild fig-tree near Mount Palatine, a she- 
wolf overheard the baby's cries, rescued and carried them to 
her den and nourished them with her own milk. 

A shepherd of the king who subsequently discovered the 
fate of Rhea Silvia found the infants and carried them to 
his home. When nearly grown, he told them the story of 
their birth. Whereupon they slew their great uncle Amulius, 
and restored their grandfather Numitor to the throne. Then 
they resolved to build a city at the very place where they 
were so near being drowned. There were seven great hills 
in that vicinity. Remus selected the Aventine Hill, and 
Romulus the Palatine. To settle the question, pursuant to 
the grandfather's advice, they watched for omens, each 
standing on his hill. Remus saw six vultures flying in the 
air, but Romulus saw twelve ; and so the site of the future 
city was located on the Palatine hill and Romulus designated 
as king. According to custom, having yoked a bull and 
a pure white heifer to a plow, he traced a furrow around 
the hill by which to locate the boundaries of the city; and 
soon rude protecting walls were rising. Remus derisively 
leaped over the wall, whereupon his brother struck him dead. 



50 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

exclaiming: "So perish all who leap over the walls of my 
city!" 

This is said to have occurred in 735 B. C, Anno urbis 
conditae, from which the Romans fixed their dates as A. U. 
C. ; and, if these accounts are true, it is seen that Rome had 
its inception in war through tragic family combats; while, 
if not true, they at least indicate the combative tendencies 
of the minds in which these tales originated. 

Of a similar character was the next step in the genetic 
development of the city and people. The followers of Romu- 
lus were regarded by the neighboring tribes, it appears, as 
robbers and outlaws, so that no head of a family would per- 
mit his daughter to marry among them. The Sabine nation 
were nearest and accordingly Romulus and his band ar- 
ranged a plan to secure wives en masse. A feast in honor 
of Neptune was announced, with games and dances; and 
this was attended very generally by the Sabine families. 
When at the height of the revelry, the Romans to the number 
. of 683, if we may believe the accounts, each seized a Sabine 
girl and bore her away to his house. According to the cus- 
tom, the girl, having received a ring and having passed the 
sheepskin on the threshhold — indicating that her duty would 
be to spin her husband's wool — became the latter's wife. 
How Romulus, with Hersilia and the rest of his followers, 
set up housekeeping, while some two years later Tatius, 
king of the Sabines, led his army against the Romans to 
recover the girls; how Tarpeia was slain by the very gifts 
she coveted — the shields of the Sabines — as the reward for 
her treason; how Romulus and the Sabines became one 
nation, and Romulus finally was taken up in a storm of 
thunder and lightning, by his father Mars, the god of war, 
to reign with the celestials, where he was worshipped by 
the Romans under the name of Ouirinus, are tales of the 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 51 

same general order, and, whether fabulous or true, involve 
the element and idea of war. 

So during the terms of all the succeeding generations, 
from the peaceful reign of Numa Pompilius, 715 B. C... to 
the expulsion of the Tarquins, 509 B. C, when the consular 
government began, the central theme seems to be war — 
and little else than war. Of such nature are the tales of 
the Horatii and Curatii ; of the triple murder that made 
Tarquinius Superbus, king; of the treachery of his son in 
subduing the gabii; and of the suicide of Lucretia, which 
caused the gates to be shut upon Tarquin and resulted in 
the election of the Consuls. 

The most conspicuous events, as recorded under the Re- 
public, were of a warlike character. The attempt of the 
Tuscan king, Lars Porsena, to restore Tarquin to the throne 
of Rome, involves a justification of war. Porsena's troops 
forced the Romans back across the bridge leading to the 
Janiculum gate upon the Tiber. Leaving three men — Hora- 
tius, Lartius, and Herminius — to guard the outer entrance of 
the bridge, the main body of the Roman army hastened 
across to destroy it by cutting away the timbers underneath 
and thus to prevent the passage of the Tuscans. 

Sending his comrades across when their weapons had 
given out, Horatius kept back their army single-handed, 
crying out, according to the poet : 

"For how can man die better 
Than by facing fearful odds 

For the ashes of his fathers 
And the temples of his gods?" 

Then, as the bridge fell, amidst showers of weapons, he 
plunged into the Tiber and swam across, escaping with the 
loss of an eye and a maimed foot which lamed him for life. 



52 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

The adventure of Caius Mucins or Scaevola, the left-handed, 
in the enemies' camp, the battle at Lake Regillus, where Tar- 
quin was assisted by the Latins, but the Romans by Castor 
and Pollux, and death of Tarquin, if legendary, also partake 
of the same strenuous character. 

Up to the time of the Empire, or the battle of Pharsalia, 
45 B. C, there existed almost continual warfare. This was 
of three general classes : Struggles for social equality or 
supremacy between the plebeians and patricians ; contests for 
supremacy between the tribes of the peninsula, and foreign 
wars of conquest, or for the purpose of repelling invaders. 
The union of the Romans and Sabines was followed by the 
admixture of a third people, probably the Etruscans or Tus- 
cans, who had settled upon the Caelian hill. These, with the 
Romans upon the Palatine hill and Sabines upon the Quir- 
inal, united under the kings, and a temple to Jupiter was 
built on the Capitoline hill, one to Diana on the Aventine 
hill, Avhile a single fortification was made to encompass the 
seven hills, including the Esquiline and Viminal. In time 
those settled here formed an aristocratic class of old Roman 
families. In their system, a group of early families de- 
scended from a common ancestor formed a gens and each 
gens was governed by a chief (decurio), who performed the 
rites in religion and led in warfare. Each gens belonged to 
a larger group called a cin'ia, while the united curiae made 
up the tribe. Under the kings each of the three tribes had 
one hundred representative members in the assembly and 
only members of these tribes could vote or be elected. So 
it came about at the beginning of the consular government 
that a great number of persons from other cities who had 
settled in Rome, because not belonging to the old families 
possessed no political rights. They were called plebeians and 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 53 

could not vote, hold office or marry into patrician families, 
though they were allowed to hold property of their own. 

This state of things naturally resulted in the merging of 
a class struggle between the patricians and plebeians, espe- 
cially as in the outset one of the rights withheld from a ple- 
beian was permission to serve in the army. This was one of 
the earliest rights, however, extended to the lower classes. 

A considerable part of the history of Rome refers to these 
struggles. Many of the Romans in those days had small 
farms in the country, which they worked with the aid of 
their children and slaves. Often they ran into debt for lands 
or to improve what they possessed. Plebeians thus had fre- 
quently to borrow money from patricians. The Roman law 
was severe on the debtor. Not only could his lands be seized 
in default of payment, but he himself could be thrown into 
prison or sold into slavery. His wife and children could be 
sold also, and if creditors demanded it, the man himself 
could be cut into pieces and the fragments apportioned out 
according to the debts. 

Under Servius TuUius (567 B. C), plebeians were ad- 
mitted to a restricted suffrage, but at the beginning of the 
republic the common people, on account of the almost con- 
stant wars waged, found themselves overwhelmed with debt, 
their homes and fields sold, and themselves often maltreated 
by pitiless creditors. Driven to desperation, they openly 
resisted, and one of these debtors, a brave centurion, escap- 
ing from prison, ran into the Forum in chains with his rags 
hanging about him and demanded of the astonished judges 
and people if it was just that one who had committed no 
crime should be subjected to such treatment? On this the 
plebeians withdrew from the city in a body to the Sacred 
Mount. The Senate was alarmed and sent ten deputies with 
a consul, Menenius Agrippa, who persuaded them to return 



54 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

by relating the allegory of the stomach and the revolt of the 
other organs of the body. 

In 494 B. C, a solemn compact was entered into to the 
effect that the debts of all insolvent persons should be can- 
celed, and those imprisoned for debt released. Also, in or- 
der to protect the plebeians from oppression, two officers- 
tribunes of the people, they were called — were appointed 
from the plebeians themselves, with the power to "veto" or 
forbid the act of a magistrate which bore unjustly upon the 
conduct or fate of any citizen. Another political advance 
was the organization of a permanent assembly of the ple- 
beians called by the tribunes, who could there discuss the in- 
terest of the people. After 472 B. C, plebeian assemblies 
had the right to elect their own tribunes and aediles. These 
tribunes were chosen for one year, and their number was 
later increased to ten. Rome, under the Republic, was thus 
divided into two camps — one of plebeians, directed by the 
tribunes, and the other of patricians, with the senate and con- 
suls at their head. 

As illustrating the power of the tribunes, we cite the story 
of Coriolanus, a story which later formed the basis of a 
Shakespearian drama. Coriolanus was a young patrician es- 
teemed for his courage and ability. His surname, Corio- 
lanus, was due to his capture of Corioli, a city of the Vol- 
scians, a tribe dwelling south of Latium. On the economic 
question he warmly supported the authority of the senate, 
and his attitude so irritated the tribunes that they sentenced 
him to exile. Going among his former enemies, the Volsci, 
he soon returned at the head of a powerful army and de- 
manded the surrender of Rome. Deputies were immediately 
sent to recall Coriolanus from banishment and to make 
peace. Despite their abject entreaties he disdained to listen. 
Great was the city's alarm. At this juncture, Veturia, 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 55 

mother of Coriolanus, with his wife, Volumnia, and her two 
children, followed by many noble matrons, set out from the 
city and advanced to the camp of the Volsci. The spectacle 
of the pleading mother at her son's feet was more than he 
could resist. 

"What is it you do?" he cried, as he assisted her to rise. 
"You have saved Rome, but lost your son." 

Returning to the Volsci, it is reported that the commander 
of the latter, Tullus, angry and disappointed, stirred up a 
tumult against Coriolanus and he was killed by the people. 

Another patrician of the Quinctian family, Cincinnatus, 
was regarded in his day as the ablest and bravest of the Ro- 
mans. It happened that his son, Kaeso, had fled from the 
country, having been charged by the tribunes with murder, 
which so affected the father that he confined himself to his 
little farm on the banks of the Tiber. The Volsci and Equi 
joined to capture the Roman city and were almost at its 
gates. In such urgent perils it was the custom to appoint a 
dictator, and, though not present, Quintius Cincinnatus was 
made Dictator, and messengers sent to notify him. They 
found him on his farm guiding his plow. On being in- 
formed of his election, he said to his wife : 

"Racilia, bring me my toga!" 

Going speedily to Rome and appointing an experienced 
old soldier, Lucius Tarquitius, general of horse, Cincinnatus 
thoroughly conquered the invading tribes, and in sixteen 
days resigned and went back to his plow, asking as his only 
reward that his son be pardoned and recalled from banish- 
ment. This was done. 

There was always more or less dissension between ple- 
beians and patricians and their representatives. In 454 B. C, 
a tribune, Icilius, succeeded in securing the Aventine hill for 
the plebeians, and in 450, ten commissioners were appointed 



56 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

for a year, called decemviri, to draw up a system of laws. 
Moderate at first, all the other magistrates having been 
abolished, the decemviris became tyrannical later, as is il- 
lustrated in the case of one of them, Appius Claudius. Hav- 
ing conceived a criminal passion for a plebeian schoolgirl of 
fifteen, whom he accidentally saw, named Virginia, and de- 
siring to get her into his power, he made the claim that she 
was one of his slaves, and had her seized. How her father, 
Virginius, returning from the army, slew his daughter in 
the place of trial rather than permit Appius, as judge, to 
gain her on perjured testimony, is one of the bloody re- 
minders of the execution of justice in that period. 

Repeated acts of tyranny led to the demand for written 
laws which resulted in the formulation of a code called the 
Twelve Tables, forming the basis of the most important 
system of law probably ever given to the world. In prin- 
ciple the code recognized the equality of all citizens without 
respect to persons, but, as it forbade marriage between patri- 
cians and plebeians and excluded the latter from holding 
high offices, further changes were sought and made. 

Under the consuls Valerius and Horatius (448 B. C.) 
the assembly was given power to make laws binding upon all 
the people, plebeians and patricians alike, and a law (lex Can- 
uleia) was passed 445 B. C, granting the right of inter- 
marriage between the two orders, thus through social equal- 
ization, paving the way to political equality. 

As just law may be regarded as the antagonist of dissen- 
sion and war, so the development of law in the Roman state 
may be considered in some slight degree as reacting against 
warfare. 

The earliest wars, as we have seen, took place among the 
tribes of the peninsula — the Romans, Sabines, and a third 
people called Luceres, some of whom occupied the Caelian 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 57 

liill, believed to be Latins or Etruscans. The Etruscans held 
all the territory originally on the right bank of the Tiber, 
known as Etruria. With the Etruscan wars is entwined the 
tale of the Fabians, among the most famous of Roman pa- 
tricians. Having undertaken to wage war against the Tus- 
cans alone and at their own expense, with the exception of 
one person, three hundred Fabians were utterly destroyed 
by the Tuscans at Cremera, 477 B. C. 

One of the earliest sieges of historic authenticity was that 
of the Etruscan city, Veii, located on the Cremera branch of 
the Tiber, possessing walls so strong that it was impossible 
to destroy or penetrate them. About this time (405 B. C.) 
Roman soldiers were first granted pay for their services, and 
the city was continuously invested for ten years (405-396 B. 
C.) for the purpose of starving the inhabitants into submis- 
sion, and was finally captured by Camillus, who had been ap- 
pointed dictator. This victory aroused the enemies of Ca- 
millus to envy and to forestall their action the senate au- 
thorized him to besiege another Etruscan city, Falerii, which 
the inhabitants surrendered through a curious incident. A 
Falerian schoolmaster treacherously led the children of the 
chief families into the Roman camp and offered to surrender 
them as hostages, but this act so disgusted Camillus that 
he ordered the man to be flogged by his own pupils. When 
the parents heard of Camillus' action they spontaneously 
opened their gates to him. 

Nevertheless he was forced into voluntary exile by his 
enemies, and is said to have expressed the wish that the 
gods might reduce them to the necessity of regreting his 
absence. 

Whether his prayer was of any avail or not, scarcely had 
he gone when Rome found itself in a desperate encounter 
with the Gauls. The Tuscan city of Clusium having been 



58 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

attacked by them, the Tuscans applied to the Romans for 
aid. Three Fabian ambassadors were sent to the Gauls to 
arrange a peace, and in the interview one of the Fabians so 
far forgot his character as to kill one of the Gauls. Where- 
upon the Gauls, abandoning their attack on Clusium, 
marched upon Rome. Unskilled generals are blamed for the 
defeat of the Roman troops at the little river Alia and the 
capture of Rome, which, after three days spent in sacking it, 
the barbarians set on fire and reduced to a mass of ruins 
(390 B. C.). 

According to Livy, Camillus liberated Rome and was 
hailed as its second founder, while Manlius, who had saved 
the senate building — being awakened by the cackling of 
geese — was accused of aspiring to absolute power, despite 
the fact that he sold his estates and rescued more than four 
hundred of his fellow citizens from imprisonment by lend- 
ing them money without interest ; despite all this he was ac- 
cused of being a social agitator and conspirator and thrown 
as a traitor from Tarpeian rock. But, according to other 
historians, the Gauls retained their hold over Rome for some 
fifty years. 

However, Rome rose from its ashes, raised new armies 
and quickly proceeded to defeat her old enemies, the Vol- 
scians, Aequians and Tuscans, who had tried to take ad- 
vantage of her distress. Many towns of Latium were 
brought under subjection and afforded homes for the Roman 
poor. About this time (367 B. C.), under the leadership 
of C. Lucinius Stolo and L. Sextius, the Lucinian laws were 
enacted regulating the loaning of money, distribution and 
use of the land, doing away with military tribunes, and pro- 
viding that one of the consuls should thereafter be a plebeian. 
Sextius, tribune of the people, was the first to receive this 
honor. 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 59 

From now on, for nearly eighty years, Rome was engaged 
in wars relating chiefly to the conquest of the peninsula. To 
accomplish this she had not only to conquer the Etruscans 
and keep back the roving Gauls to the north, but to subdue 
the Oscians inhabiting the country south from Latium along 
the western coast, and including the Aequians, the Herni- 
cans, and the Volscians. Also the Sabellians, living east and 
south of the Latins and Oscans, along the ridges and slopes 
of the Apennines, including the Samnites, Marsians, Picen- 
tians, Frentani, Apulians, Lucanians, and the Bruttians. 

The Samnites were the most warlike people of central 
Italy, and had taken Capua from the Etruscans, and Cumae 
from the Greek colonists, and were extending into Cam- 
pania. The Campanians appealed to Rome for help, prom- 
ising to become Roman subjects. Though then at peace with 
the Samnites, Rome sent two armies into the field, one to 
protect Campania and the other to invade Samnium. The 
first army encountered the Samnites at Mt. Gaurus, near 
Cumae, and was victorious, driving the enemy toward the 
mountains, where the Samnites rallied near Suessula, and 
where they were again defeated by the combined Roman 
armies. 

Shortly after this the Roman soldiers stationed at Capua 
for the winter mutined and threatened to take the city as 
their share of the conquest. This mutiny spread to the 
Latins, many of whom were soldiers in the Roman ranks. 
A law was passed assigning regular shares in the booty and 
regular pay, which pacified the Roman soldiers, but while 
the mutiny lasted the Latins had become the chief defenders 
of Campania against the Samnites. So the Campanians 
shared the defection against Rome. Curiously enough, 
Rome now made a treaty with the Samnites. her recent 
enemies, and with them attacked her former allies, the Lat- 



60 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

ins and Campanians, whom she had been defending. At the 
battle fought on the slopes of Mt. Vesuvius (339 B. C), the 
Latins were defeated, and the towns of Tibur, Praeneste, 
Aricia, Lanuvium, Velitrae, and Antium were conquered in 
quick succession. The last city, Pedum, surrendered in the 
third year of the war and the revolt thus came to an end. 

The Samnites were jealous of the Roman increase in 
power and desired to gain supremacy, but were themselves 
threatened in the south by a new enemy, the Greeks, who 
were aiding the people of Tarentum and sought to extend 
their colonies. The twin cities of Paleopolis (old city), and 
Neapolis (new city), in Campania, though still in the hands 
of the Greeks, were under the protection of the Samnites, and 
as many disputes arose between the Roman settlers and the 
people of these cities, a second war broke out between the 
Romans and Samnites (326 B. C.), which continued for 
twenty-two years. The Romans demanded the withdrawal 
of the Samnite garrison, and, on being refused, besieged 
Paleopolis, which soon yielded to the army of Q. Publilius 
Philo. After capturing the strong city of Luceria in Apulia, 
the Apulians, and also the Lucanians, joined the Romans as 
allies. 

However, in the fifth year of the war, 321 B. C., the Ro- 
mans met with a terrible defeat. A false report being cir- 
culated that the city of Luceria was being besieged by the 
Samnites, an army was hastily sent to the city's relief. In 
passing a defile in the mountains near Caudium, the whole 
Roman army was entrapped and captured by the Samnite 
general, Pontius, who consulted his father as to the best dis- 
position to make of the Romans. The old man said : "Either 
free them honorably and thus gain their friendship, or put 
them all to the sword and thus cripple Rome." Instead of 
doing either, the Roman soldiers, stripped of arms and most 



THE ITAUAN PENINSULA 61 

of their clothing, were made to pass under the yoke and the 
consuls to agree to give up all the territory taken, in the be- 
lief that such a course would end the war. 

But the Roman Senate disavowed the treaty and thus af- 
forded a peculiar example of perfidy, often met with in di- 
plomacy, especially as the generals are said to have urged 
this course on the Senate. The consuls who had made this 
unfortunate treaty were, however, handed over to the Sam- 
nites to be treated as the latter might choose. 

The Senate appointed new consuls, Papirius Cursor and 
Publius, the best warriors of the republic, and sent them at 
the head of new armies against the Samnites, and the fol- 
lowing year (320 B. C.) defeated them at Luceria. Rome 
now anticipated immediate success, but in this she was dis- 
appointed. The enemy had been active in securing allies. 
Nearly all the cities in Campania revolted. The Samnites 
recaptured Luceria and also Fregallae on the Liris, and 
gained an important victory near Anxur in southern Latium. 
Besides, the Etruscans revolted and attacked the Roman gar- 
rison at Sutrium. It required several years of fighting be- 
fore these rebellions were thoroughly checked. After the 
capture of Bovianum, the chief city of the Samnites, peace 
was declared, and this troublesome people entered into an 
alliance with Rome. 

Where old enmities exist wars develop on slight provoca- 
tion, and the Samnites, smarting under their treatment, soon 
managed to incite the Umbrians, the Etruscans and the Gauls 
to resist the common enemy. They also entered into a com- 
pact with the Lucanians, their nearest neighbors to the south, 
who had been allies of Rome in the previous war. This at- 
tempt of the Samnites to control Lucania, led to a declara- 
tion of war. Rome now possessed as allies the Latins and 
Volscians and also the Aequians and Marsians on the east. 



62 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

and the Campanians in the south. Three armies were placed 
in the field by the Samnites, one to defend Samnium, a sec- 
ond to invade Campania, and a third to enter Etruria, the 
last being expected to unite with the Umbrians, Etruscans 
and Gauls, and attack Rome from the north. 

Rome got busy. The citizens flew to arms. A strong 
force moved into Etruria under the consuls, Q. Fabius Rul- 
lianus and Decius Mus, and scattered the hostile armies be- 
fore they were fairly united. The Gauls and Samnites re- 
treated across the Apennines to Sentinum, where a forti- 
fied camp was organized. Upon this famous field the fate 
of Italy was settled (298 B. C.). 

Fabius commanded the right wing of the Romans and 
Decius Mus the left, which was during the battle driven back 
by a terrific charge of the Gallic war chariots. At the head 
of his troops Decius, following the example of his father, 
sacrificed himself on the altar of death, and the line was re- 
stored. A decided victory for the Romans followed. Peace 
was made with the Etrurians the following year, and later 
(283 B. C.) the Samnites and Lucanians submitted. 

All governments must maintain a certain dignity, even 
republics, and the citizens of Tarentum, the most important 
of the Greek cities in Italy, having insulted a Roman am- 
bassador, Rome declared war on that city. At this time 
Pyrrhus was king of Epirus in Greece, but aspired to found 
an empire in the west. The Tarentines appealed to Pyrrhus 
and asked the Romans to accept him as arbiter. This the 
Roman consul, Levinus, already in territory of Tarentum, re- 
fused to do, and Pyrrhus, the ablest general of his time, hav- 
ing landed in Italy with 25,000 troops and twenty elephants, 
marched against the Romans. The armies met at Heraclea, 
1 town on the gulf of Taranto not far from Tarentum, where 
for the first time the Roman legions encountered the Mace- 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 63 

donian phalanxes. Seven times they charged without break- 
ing the phalanxes ; when Pyrrhus turned his elephants upon 
the Roman cavalry, the latter fled in confusion before this 
unusual attack. The victor's losses were so great, however, 
that he sent his most trusted minister, Cineas, to Rome to 
propose peace. In a persuasive speech he would have ef- 
fected this, had not the blind old censor, Appius Claudius, 
admonished the senate never to make peace with an enemy 
on Roman soil. 

Supported by the Greek cities, the Bruttians, the Lucan- 
ians and even some of the Samnites, Pyrrhus advanced 
northward, and another battle was fought (279 B. C.) at 
Asculum near Luceria, in which the elephants again routed 
the Romans, but with great losses to the Greek phalanxes. 
Leaving his general, Milo, at Tarentum, Pyrrhus crossed 
over to Sicily to assist the Syracusans against the Cartha- 
ginians, whom he succeeded in driving into their stronghold, 
Lilybeum, at the western extremity of the island, but failed 
to capture the city, and called upon the people to build a fleet. 
As they declined to do this, regarding them as unworthy of 
his aid, he returned to Tarentum with the end of subduing 
the Romans. 

An army under the consul, Curius Dentatus, was en- 
trenched near Beneventum, among the hills of Samnium, and 
Pyrrhus decided to overwhelm it before it could be rein- 
forced. The Romans had now lost their fear of elephants, 
and by harrassing them in the charge the fury of the bulky 
beasts was turned toward their own troops, and the army of 
Pyrrhus was forced back with great loss, he escaping to 
Tarentum with a small body of horses, and thence to Greece. 

The victory at Beneventum (375 B. C), with the reduc- 
tion of Tarentum two years later, ended the Tarentine war. 
The Lucanians, Bruttians and revolting Samnites were sub- 



64 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

dued; Ancona, on the east, the chief city of Picenum, taken 
by storm (368 B. C), and further north Ariminum, the 
largest city in Umbria, was taken {2QQ B. C.) ; at this time, 
the subjection of Italy seemed complete. A spirit of revolt 
showing itself among the Etruscan cities, the walls of the 
most important, Volsinii, were razed to the ground, and its 
works of art transferred to Rome, whose supremacy was now 
acknowledged from the Macra and Rubicon to the straits of 
Sicily. 

The supremacy acquired by Rome, as in the case of every 
other state which has risen from primitive conditions to im- 
portance, depended very largely upon the disposition and 
organization of its army. Under the kings, especially Ser- 
vius Tullius, the army had been made the principal factor in 
the government. Servius, who saw the need of having ple- 
beians pay taxes and perform military duty the same as the 
patricians, after dividing the territory into local districts, en- 
rolled every able-bodied man as subject to military service. 
Thus he secured eighteen centuries of cavalry (equites), in- 
cluding young wealthy citizens, and one hundred and sev- 
enty-five centuries of infantry (pedites). comprising all 
others capable of bearing arms, arranged in five classes ac- 
cording to their wealth, as each individual had to furnish his 
own weapons. The first class of eighty centuries included 
those who could afford a brass shield for the left arm, 
greaves for the legs, a cuirass for the breast, and a helmet 
for the head, together with a sword and spear. The second 
class were similarly armed, but had a wooden spear covered 
with leather. The third differed from the second in omitting 
the greaves, and the fourth in omitting also the cuirass and 
helmet, while the fifth and poorest fought only with darts 
and slings. Except the first, each was arranged in twenty 



THE ITAUAN PENINSULA 6^ 



centuries or companies, and one-half in each class ( juniores) 
were youn^^ men who might be called at any time, and the 
other half, older men (seniores), constituting the reserves. 
Besides these one hundred and seventy-eight centuries there 
were fifteen centuries of carpenters, musicians and substi- 
tutes. 

Now, Rome having reached the importance of a sovereign 
state including nearly all Italy, with colonies along the sea 
coast, Antium and Anxur in Latium, Minturnae in the Vol- 
scian domain, and Sinuessa in Campania, some of which re- 
quired garrisons, new military dispositions and methods were 
instituted. As the consuls commanded, in time of war it was 
customary to raise four legions, two for each consul. In 
each legion were twenty maniples or companies, of one hun- 
dred and twenty men, and ten maniples of sixty men each, 
making 3,000 heavy armed troops; also 1,200 light armed 
troops, thus making 4,200 infantry, besides a troop of 300 
horses, were usually added. 

In fighting, after the time of Camillus (391 B. C), in- 
stead of the solid square after the manner of the Greek 
phalanx, each legion was drawn up in three lines of battle ; 
in front young men (hastati) with javelins to be hurled at 
the enemy before coming to close quarters; the second line 
(principes), composed of experienced soldiers, were armed 
similarly, and the third line (triarii), made up of veterans, 
had long lances in place of javelins. All had short swords] 
and for defensive armor, a brass helmet for the head' 
greaves for the legs, a coat of mail for the body and a shield 
for the left arm. 

^^ Prowess in battle was stimulated by the award of the 
"civic crown" of oak leaves bestowed by the general in the 
presence of the whole army, and by the presentation of ban- 
ners of different hues, ornaments and golden crowns, the 



66 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

highest honor for a general being a triumphal march to the 
Capitol with his prisoners and trophies of war. 

The strength Rome had acquired in the peninsula con- 
tests was now to be used in other directions as a world 
power. Two other nations bordering on the Mediterranean 
had attained to the rank of world powers — Greece and 
Carthage — and Rome undertook to subdue them. That the 
proper function of a nation is war, no one at that period 
could well have questioned. It was only necessary to have 
a pretext, and pretexts are easily found where the disposi- 
tion and power exists, and the selfish motive is generally 
distinguishable. 

When the Romans were warring with Pyrrhus. the Cartha- 
ginians sent a fleet under Mago to aid them : because they 
desired to curtail the extension of Greek dominion. But as 
Rome, successful, sought to extend her influence, Carthage 
began to be jealous of her. Carthage was the chief mer- 
chant of the Mediterranean. Her marts were the cities of 
all its shores, and her wares the products of those cities and 
of other parts of Europe, consisting of tin from Britain, 
gold from Spain, silver from the Balearic Isles, linen from 
Egypt, frankincense from Arabia, and purple dyes from 
Tyre. 

The first Punic war was really a contest for the control 
of the island of Sicily, then divided between three powers. 
Carthage held all the western part, including the cities of 
Drepanum and Lilybaeum on the west, Agrigentum on the 
south, and Panormus on the north ; the southeastern section 
was controlled by the king of Syracuse, and the northeastern 
by Campanian soldiers, who called themselves Sons of Mars 
or Mamartines. These Mamartines, having committed many 
robberies and having murdered some of the citizens of Mes- 
sina, were attacked by Hiero, King of Syracuse, who laid 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 67 

siege to the city. The Mamartines asked Rome to aid them. 
The question of assisting these robbers as against Syracuse, 
a friendly power, perplexed the Roman senate ; but as Car- 
thage would undoubtedly help them if Rome refused and 
thus get control of the territory, it was decided by the as- 
sembly to help the Mamartines. 

During the delay these sons of Mars had invited and ad- 
mitted a Carthaginian garrison into the city, so that when 
the Roman army under Appius Claudius arrived they found 
the Carthaginians in possession. Claudius regarded this as 
a breach of faith, and at a conference between him and the 
Carthaginian commander, Hanno, as if to retaliate in kind, 
seized and imprisoned the latter. Whereupon Hanno, to 
secure his liberty, ordered the city given up, and the Ro- 
mans took possession. For this, Hanno was crucified upon 
his return home. Hiero, meanwhile, having formed an al- 
liance with the Carthaginians to expel the Romans from the 
island, attacked their army. But the allied forces under 
Hiero were defeated, and the Romans moved across the 
island, capturing town after town, till in the second year of 
the war, after a siege of seven months, Agrigentum sur- 
rendered (263 B. C), next to Syracuse the most important 
city in Sicily and the seat of the Carthaginian arsenal. 

By this time the energies of the two nations were fully 
aroused for the conflict, but they were separated by the sea, 
and the Romans saw the need of a navy. They possessed a 
few triremes with three banks of oars, but were quite unable 
to cope with the Carthaginian ships, quinquiremes, with five 
banks of oars. A Carthaginian galley^ stranded on the 
Italian coast, served them as a model, and they went to work 
with such ardor to construct a fleet, that one hundred and 
twenty vessels were built in two months. Besides they added 
an improvement, conn, or grappling bridges, which could be 



68 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

dropped at close quarters on an enemy's ship and enable the 
Romans to board it. Soldiers having been trained into oars- 
men by means of rude banks of benches built on land, the 
new galleys were manned, and Duilius, the consul, as com- 
mander, went in search of the Punic fleet, the crews of which 
were engaged in plundering the north coast of Sicily. Rely- 
ing on their long experience as sailors, the coming of the 
Romans was hailed with satisfaction. But as the fleets came 
together, the sudden drop of the grappling bridges and the 
onslaught of the boarders surprised them and their defeat 
was complete. Fifty of the Punic vessels were sunk or cap- 
tured in this first naval battle of the Romans, which occurred 
near Mylae, 260 B. C, and Duilius was given a magnificent 
triumph at Rome, a column being erected in the Forum dec- 
orated with the beaks of the captured galleys. 

Having constructed a larger fleet, in the ninth year of the 
war, the Romans decided to invade Africa. Defeating the 
Carthaginians' squadron, which attempted to bar their way, 
off the promontory of Ecnomius, on the southern coast of 
Sicily, two legions under L. Manlius Vulso and Regulus, 
landed on the coast east of Carthage, captured the port of 
Clypea, and proceeded to lay waste to the country. A 
strange omen was encountered near the river Bagrada, con- 
sisting of a serpent with scales which no dart would pierce. 
Finally a stone hurled from a catapult broke his back, and 
the skin, one hundred and twenty feet long, was sent to 
Rome as prophetic of a lengthy but successful war. Their 
invasion was so unobstructed that Vulso's legion was re- 
called, and Regulus left to finish the work. He soon cap- 
tured Tunis, and the Carthaginians sued in vain for peace; 
even in despair throwing some of their children into the altar 
fires to propitiate their god Moloch. Xanthippus, a Spartan 
soldier, offered to take command of their army and was ac- 



THE ITALIAN PENINSUI.A 69 

cepted. Using elephants, he defeated the Romans, destroyed 
their army and made Rugulus his prisoner. 

The war dragged along for several years in Sicily to the 
advantage of the Carthaginians, when the capture of the 
city of Panormus, with the Punic army and one hundred 
elephants, turned the tide of conflict. The beasts were taken 
to Italy in order that the soldiers might learn how to oppose 
as well as manage them in warfare. 

It is recorded how Regulus about this time, quite in con- 
trast to the many perfidies related, came to Rome to ofTer 
terms of peace for Carthage, though himself urging the 
Senate not to accept them ; and then, in accord with his word, 
returned as a prisoner to the Carthaginians to be executed. 

In Sicily the consul, P. Claudius, failing to capture Lily- 
baeum, the stronghold of Punic power, decided to destroy 
the fleet anchored near Dreanum, but impiously disregarded 
the auguries. When the sacred chickens refused to eat, 
he threw them into the sea, exclaiming: "Then let them 
drink!" As a result, as was then believed, he was defeated, 
with a loss of over ninety ships. 

Claudius was recalled by the Senate and a dictator ap- 
pointed. In fighting Carthage, Rome had now lost one- 
sixth of its entire population, and vast treasure. Wealthy 
citizens advanced the money to build a fleet of two hundred 
new galleys, which were placed under the command of the 
consul C. Lutatius Catalus. A decisive victory was gained 
ofT the west coast of Sicily and the Carthaginians were com- 
pelled to sue for peace. They surrendered Sicily, released 
all Roman prisoners without ransom, and agreed to pay 
3,200 talents (about $4,000,000) within ten years. Thus 
ended the first Punic war in 341 B. C. 

■Sicily was the first Roman province, and a proprietor 
was sent to levy imposts, administer justice, and, if necessary, 



70 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

command the army. Later this title seems to have had the 
force of our EngHsh kindred word, proprietor, though 
changed to proconsul. Strife being the predominant social 
element, Carthage now had to fight her own mercenaries, 
who, not having secured their pay, marched against the city 
to pillage it. The Punic general Hamilcar Barca, engaged 
the rebels, surrounded them, and exterminated them with 
such cruelty that this conflict became known as "the Inexpia- 
ble War." ' 

Profiting by this rebellion of the mercenaries, Rome 
seized Corsica and Sardinia which had also belonged to 
Carthage, and because of the protest of Carthage, imposed 
a fine of 1,200 talents ($1,500,000), which the latter was 
obhged to pay. Now for a brief period, in the year 235 
B. C, the temple of Janus was closed, for the first time in 
437 years, since the reign of Numa Pompilius. But new 
opportunities for martial valor soon presented themselves. 
Illyrian pirates having plundered some Greek cities about 
this time, Rome responded to an appeal and with a fleet 
of two hundred ships, cleared the Adriatic of these sea- 
robbers. Thus Rome secured a foothold upon the eastern 
coast of the Adriatic and engaged in friendly relations wnth 
Greece. 

Another opportunity for war was afforded by the Gauls 
who lived upon the banks of the Po. From the Sybilline 
books it was learned with apprehension that these barbarians 
would twice capture Rome. According to the college of 
pontiffs, this prophecy would be fulfilled without danger 
to Rome if two Gauls were buried alive. This ceremony 
being performed, the consuls advanced with their army to 
meet the Gauls, encamped near Cape Telemon, not above 
three days' journey from Rome. Though superior in num- 
bers, the Gauls were poorly equipped, and fought almost 
naked. Despite their fierce yells and appearance, they were 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 71 

defeated with a loss of 40,000, killed and wounded (225 
B. C). 

The Romans now crossed the Po for the first time, and 
seized Milan, the capital of the Insubres (223 B. C). The 
Alphine Gauls, called Gesates, because of their skill in 
casting darts, came to the aid of their brethren; but were 
almost annihilated at Clastidium, where Viridomar, their 
chief, was slain in combat by the hand of the consul Mar- 
cellus (222 B. C.)- This victory gave the Romans control 
of all northern Italy. 

Perhaps the most remarkable contest in antiquity was the 
second Punic War, waged partly because of growing rivalry 
and desire for more territory, and partly for revenge. The 
ambition of Carthage was for trade, and her commercial 
opportunities had been greatly curtailed as the result of 
her previous war with Rome. Owing to the loss of her 
island possessions, she was building up an empire on the 
Iberian peninsula, where abounded many rich mines and 
other sources of wealth. Begun under Hamilcar Barca, 
her greatest citizen and soldier, the extension of her control 
was being continued to the west and north by his son-in-law, 
Hasdrubal, who founded New Carthage (Cartagena), on 
the Mediterranean coast. A treaty had been made with 
Rome, providing respect for the Iberian city of Saguntum 
to the north, and limiting the Punic conquests to the south 
banks of the Ebro. Hamilcar had four sons, who he re- 
garded as lion whelps bred to fight Rome; and it is also 
said that the youngest, Hannibal, when a boy of nine, had 
taken an oath on the altar of Baal to destroy that nation. 
Hasdrubal died, Hamilcar was killed in battle; and at the 
age of twenty-six Hannibal became commander of the 
army. He threatened to take Saguntum, and the Iberians 
sent to Rome for help. At the head of 150,000 men, said 
to have been one-half Spaniards, and the other half Car- 



72 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

thaginians, he besieged Saguntum, and after eight months, 
captured and reduced it to ashes. The Romans sent an 
army into Africa under Sempronius, and another into Spain 
under P. Cornelius Scipio. Hannibal decided that by carry- 
ing the war into Roman territory he could compel the with- 
drawal of both these armies. Accordingly leaving his 
brother Hasdrubal to protect Spain, he set out on a march 
to Italy with fifty thousand infantry, nine thousand cavalry, 
and thirty-seven elephants. There were no roads at that 
time, and though he crossed the Pyrenees in summer, he 
had to overcome a hundred hostile tribes on the way, and 
it was late in autumn before he had outflanked the barbarians 
who strove to oppose his passage at the River Rhone, crossed 
that river, and found the passes of the Little St. Bernard 
by which he had to force his way through snow and ice over 
the Alps. Men and horses perished there in great numbers 
and only seven elephants were left when he descended into 
the plains of northern Italy, where he expected to be rein- 
forced by the Cisalpine Gauls. 

The Romans had learned of this expedition, and retaining 
Sempronius to defend Italy, Scipio was sent by sea to Mar- 
sala to try and stop Hannibal at the Rhone ; but he was too 
late, and so returned to Italy in time to obstruct the passage 
of Hannibal across the Ticinus, but was there defeated and 
badly wounded. Before Scipio could again rejoin the army, 
his colleague Sempronius had met with a still worse defeat 
in attempting to stop the march of Hannibal near the Trebia. 

The following spring Hannibal, who had now reached 
the heart of Italy, was opposed by Flaminius, quite as 
brave but no more prudent than Sempronius. Flaminius 
placed his own army at Aretium in Etruria and his col- 
league's at Ariminum to guard the only roads by which 
Hannibal could approach Rome. But the wily Carthaginian 
crossed the Apennines and not only got his army between 



THE ITAUAN PENINSULA 73 

the Roman armies and their Capital, but so posted it on 
the heights north of Lake Trasumenus as to overlook a 
defile through which the army of Flaminius had to pass to 
reach Rome. Though the Romans fought with despera- 
tion on finding themselves thus ambushed, the result was a 
rout; Flaminius was slain, many of his soldiers were cap- 
tured, and a large number perished by throwing themselves 
into the lake. So furious was the battle that an earthquake 
which occurred at the time and destroyed several cities, 
was unnoticed by the combatants. 

Three such bloody defeats in succession terrified the 
Romans. A more cautious type of man was chosen as dic- 
tator, Q. Fabius Maximus, a member of the Fabian gens 
which had on previous occasions proved its devotion to 
the country. Fabius adopted the plan of merely harassing 
the troops of Hannibal without coming to an open conflict, 
a poHcy he carried to such an extent that it gave him the 
name of Fabius Cunctator, the Delayer. He did attempt 
to decoy Hannibal's forces into a narrow defile of the 
mountains near Falerium, but Punic was more than a match 
for him. The Carthaginians tied bundles of dry wood to 
the horns of some two thousand oxen, and during the night 
set these bundles on fire and drove the cattle toward the 
heights occupied by Romans. The latter were terrified and, 
abandoning their posts, fled, while Hannibal escaped with his 
army. 

The Roman people tired of Fabius and his procrastinating 
ways, and appointed Paulus Aemilius and Varro for their 
consuls, of whom it was subsequently said that Paulus had 
prudence enough to save, and Varre temerity enough to 
ruin the republic. Unfortunately for Rome, Varro's plans 
for conducting the war prevailed over the advice of Paulus. 
Hannibal's army was now in Apulia, near the town of 
Cannae, on the Aufidus River, to which the consuls led their 



74 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

army, consisting of eighty thousand infantry and six thou- 
sand horse — the largest Roman army ever collected up to 
that time. Hannibal had forty thousand foot soldiers and 
ten thousand cavalry, but according to the report he man- 
aged to shift his position so that the rays of a scorching sun 
as well as the dust of a high wind struck the faces of the 
Romans. Varro massed his infantry and, with small squad- 
rons of horse on either wing, charged directly at the center 
of Hannibal's forces, which, being a light line, as previously 
instructed, gave way when Varro's men found themselves 
attacked on each flank by heavy infantry, while strong- 
armed horsemen had easily swept aside their light-armed 
troopers, and were assaulting them from the rear. A dread- 
ful carnage followed. Pressed on all sides, the Romans 
were cut to pieces. The consul Aemilius lost his life, as did 
sixty senators. Fifty thousand soldiers were reported as 
slain, and so many of the knights that three bushels of 
gold rings were collected from the field of the dead and sent 
to Carthage. Varro escaped with only seventy horsemen. 
Every home in Rome was in mourning. 

One of Hannibal's generals, Marharbal, advised him to 
march straight upon the Capital; and had he followed this 
advice, Carthage might have become Mistress of the world 
instead of the city by the Tiber. It is further reported that 
as Hannibal declined to move his army on Rome, Marharbal 
said: "You know how to conquer, but not how to use your 
victory." 

The influence of this victory was such that many tribes, 
like the Lucanians, Samnites, and Bruttians, became allies 
of Hannibal, and Capua, next to Rome the most important 
city in Italy, opened her gates to him. And here might 
be illustrated a redeeming feature in the spirit of warfare 
in distinction from the effects of an indolent and aimless 
life of ease; since here began the downward turn in Hanni- 



THE ITAUAN PENINSULA 75 

bal's career. Hannibal imprudently selected Capua for his 
winter quarters. His hardy warriors were demoralized by 
the fascinations of an idle and sensual life. They were so 
enervated by gluttony and debauchery that the fortunes of 
their leader from that time necessarily declined. Hannibal 
seems to have remained at Capua with his army not merely 
for the winter, but for several years ; and not only neighbor- 
ing tribes gave him their allegiance, but Syracuse and other 
Sicilian cities did so as well. Besides, shortly after his ar- 
rival in Italy, he formed an alliance with Philip of Macedon. 
He retained the purpose with which he set out from 
Spain, and possessed the ambition of Alexander; he. too, 
might have become master of the world. 

Capua was retaken by the Romans in 211 B. C. in spite 
of Hannibal's opposition, and many of its citizens put to 
death. Syracuse was also besieged and taken by Marcellus, 
Archimedes, the greatest mathematician of antiquity, being 
slain in the conflict. War was also carried into Spain and. 
though both the elder Scipios were slain, the consul Cornelius 
Scipio, son of Publius, captured New Carthage and brought 
over nearly all the tribes to the Roman cause. Hannibal's 
excuse for delay was that he was awaiting reinforcements 
he had asked for from Carthage. His brother Hasdrubal 
did succeed in evading Scipio's army and in leaving Spain 
with an army to assist his brother in 208 B. C, following 
Hannibal's path over the Alps and entering the valley of the 
Po, in the spring of 207 B. C. But he was met at the river 
Metaurus by Tiberius Claudius Nero, defeated and slain. 

Scipio, having captured Gades on the western coast of 
Spain, as well as New Carthage on the Mediterranean, be- 
sides gaining other important victories, returned to Rome 
and was unanimously elected to the consulship; thereupon 
his plans for the conduct of the war were adopted. 

Scipio, being convinced that the best way to get Hannibal 



76 WAR OR A UNITED WORI.D 

out of Italy was to attack Carthage, equipped an army, em- 
barked from Sicily and landed in Africa. He was joined 
by the Numidian king. Masinissa, whom he had previously 
met in Spain, and whose title was disputed by a rival, Sy- 
phax, an ally of Carthage. The title to the kingship of 
Numidia thus became an issue in the war with Carthage. 
Discovering that the tents of Syphax's soldiers were com- 
posed of reeds and thatch, Scipio ordered his lieutenant. 
Laelius. to attack and set fire to the camp, while Scipio him- 
self was to attack the Carthaginians. Both movements were 
successful, and, wellnigh overwhelmed by these disasters, the 
Carthaginians im.mediately sent messengers to recall Han- 
nibal, who, like a lion at bay, still held his devoted army in 
Bruttium. Thus, with grief and indignation, accusing gods 
and men of thwarting him. and regretting that he had not 
attacked Rome immediately after the conclusion of the bat- 
tle of Cannae, did Hannibal leave Italy. Landing on the 
African coast, he offered terms to Scipio which the latter 
rejected, and, though realizing the inferiority of his own 
army, Hannibal awaited battle on the field of Zama. He 
had but few of his old veterans, the new armies of Carthage 
could not be depended upon, and Scipio arranged his legions 
so that the African elephants passed between them without 
opposition. The result could only be one way — Hannibal 
was defeated and the Carthaginian army suffered annihila- 
tion. Twenty thousand were slain and as many captured. 

Scipio Africanus imposed the terms of peace : 1. Car- 
thage surrendered all Spain and the islands between Africa 
and Italy; 2. Masinissa was recognized as ruler of Numidia 
and the ally of Rome; 3. Carthage promised to pay an an- 
nual tribute of 200 talents ($250,000) for fifty years; 4. 
Carthage undertook to wage no war without Rome's consent. 

Exiled from Carthage at the demands of the Romans, 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 77 

Hannibal still strove to raise up enemies against them in 
Spain, in the north of Italy, in Macedonia and Asia Minor. 
Refused an asylum by Antiochus the Great, this Cartha- 
ginian soldier, perhaps the greatest military strategist the 
world ever knew, terminated his own life by poison. 

The Romans, freed from Hannibal, the most dangerous 
enemy they ever encountered, turned their attention toward 
his allies — Philip of Macedon, Antiochus of Syria, and Per- 
seus. Pretending to take the Greek cities of the Achaean 
League and the Aetolian League under her protection as 
allies. Philip, as we have seen, was defeated at Cynoscepha- 
lae, 198 B. C, and the independence of Greece at the same 
time destroyed. Then Rome defeated Antiochus at the bat- 
tle of Magnetia, 192 B. C, and brought Syria under control, 
and by the decisive battle of Pydna. 168 B. C, overthrew 
Perseus, and destroyed the Macedonian monarchy. 

Prosperity seems to arouse the enmity of one's neighbors, 
and it seems to have been the inherent thrift of the Cartha- 
ginian people which caused the destruction of their city. 
For although the pretext for the war was found in the quar- 
rels between Carthage and Numidia, whose king, Masinissa, 
was an ally of Rome, the words of Cato — "delenda est 
Carthago'' — constituted the standing policy of the Roman 
Senate. Notwithstanding her appeal to Rome for the pro- 
tection of their rights against Masinissa, the Senate de- 
manded that as a guaranty to keep the peace, Carthage must 
surrender 300 of her noblest youths as hostages, which was 
done. Then the Senate urged, as they were under the pro- 
tection of Rome, they must give up all their arms and muni- 
tions, which also was done. Then finally the demand was 
made that as the city was fortified, it. too, must be given up 
and the inhabitants remove to a point ten miles from the 
coast, or in other words, that "Carthage must be destroyed." 



V« WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

This was more than human nature could bear. Though 
without arms, ships or alHes, a defense was resolved upon. 
The temples were turned into workshops for manufactur- 
ing weapons, and the women cut off their hair to make bow- 
strings. For three years they successfully resisted the Ro- 
man attack, when at last, Scipio Aemilianus forced a way 
through the wall and the city was taken street by street and 
house by house. Its temples were plundered and its people 
carried away as captives, and the city destroyed by fire, in 
the same year (146 B. C.) in which Corinth was destroyed — ■ 
stern evidences of Rome's grim policy of dominion. 

Africa became now a Roman province and Utica the new 
capital, where the Roman governor resided. The cities, 
which had been allied with Carthage, lost their lands and 
v/ere compelled to pay tribute, and the whole country was 
Romanized as to language, manners and customs, the wel- 
fare of the people made to depend upon their loyalty to 
Rome. 

The slave system was one of the worst results of Roman 
conquest. The thousands of captives taken in war from year 
to year were sold in the open market. Fifty thousand Cartha- 
genians had been sent to Rome after the destruction of their 
city, and it is estimated that Paulus Aemilius alone, father 
of Scipio Aemilianus, sold into slavery one hundred and 
fifty thousand persons. The estates in Sicily swarmed with 
a servile population, and, smarting under ill-treatment, they 
formed a conspiracy under a leader named Eunus, and 
fought the power of Rome for three years (132-129 B. C). 
Some two hundred thousand insurgents enrolled under the 
banner of Eunus, and not till four armies were defeated and 
Rome thrown into consternation was the rebellion finally 
crushed and Sicily pacified. It may be noted as an anomaly 
that Rome acquired one piece of territory v^ithout war. In 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 79 

the year prior to the insurrection in Sicily, at the death of At- 
tains III, King of Pergamum, in Asia Minor, "after killing 
all his heirs, ended a life of folly by bequeathing his kingdom 
to the Roman people." The kingdom was organized as a 
province under the name of "Asia." 

While Numantia was being reduced and the rebellion 
quelled in Sicily dissensions were arising in Rome, leading 
to bloody contests and the destruction of the republic. These 
conflicts grew largely out of the efforts of two brothers — 
Tiberius and Caius Gracci, grandsons, by their mother Cor- 
nelia, of the first Scipio Africanus — to correct some of the 
evils resulting from the holding of large estates and the em- 
ployment of slave labor. It was said of Tiberius Gracchus, 
the elder brother, that when passing through the province of 
Etruria he was greatly shocked to observe the fields being 
tilled by groups of slaves, with thousands of free citizens 
standing in idleness, and accordingly, when elected tribune, 
133 B. C, he immediately attempted to remedy this evil. He 
endeavored to revive the Licinian laws, to limit the holdings 
of public lands to three hundred acres for each person, to pay 
previous holders for improvements, and to rent the land 
taken up to poorer classes of citizens. If passed, this law 
would have deprived the wealthy of lands long possessed, and 
the senate opposed it; one of the tribunes. M. Octavius, put- 
ting his "veto" upon its passage. 

Tiberius determined to enact the law in spite of the senate, 
and instead of waiting for a new election he called upon the 
people to deprive Octavius of his office. This was promptly 
done, and the law passed. The senators now determined to 
prosecute Tiberius when his term of office should expire. 
But Tiberius announced himself as a candidate for re-elec- 
tion, in which, though contrary to existing law, he was sup- 
ported by the popular party. On election day, two tribes 



80 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

having already voted in his favor, a band of senators, headed 
by Scipio Nasica, appeared in the Forum, armed with sticks 
and clubs, and in the ensuing riot Tiberius and three hun- 
dred of his followers were slain. 

For a time following his death the agrarian law which 
had been passed was carried into effect, but the people lacked 
leadership and Caius Gracchus, nine years younger than his 
brother, was selected as a suitable person to champion their 
cause. He was elected tribune (123 B. C), and succeeded 
in securing the passage of a law by which any Roman citizen 
could obtain grain from the public storehouse for a price 
something less than its cost. This was intended to reduce 
the number of paupers, but seems to have had the reverse 
effect. The poor now flocked to Rome from the remotest 
parts to be fed from the public crib; so that in a few years 
there were three hundred and twenty thousand citizens de- 
pendent upon the state for their sustenance. Caius became 
very popular with this class ; nevertheless, personal ambition 
and thrift were weakened among the people by the passage 
of the law. The agrarian laws initiated by Tiberius were 
also renewed, and Caius provided for sending colonies of 
poor citizens into the provinces. He also championed and 
passed a law taking away from the senate the right to fur- 
nish jurors in criminal cases, giving the same right to the 
wealthy class, or equites ; and, on his re-election, succeeded in 
passing a measure for extending the franchise to all the 
people of Italy. This, his wisest measure, destroyed his 
popularity, as even the poorer classes of Romans did not 
desire to share their rights with foreigners. So strenuous 
were the few followers of Caius in his behalf, however, that 
the consul Opimius, with a body of armed men, marched 
against him and routed his attendants. Three thousand 
citizens were slain in the tumult (121 B. C). Abandoned 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 81 

by the multitude, for whom he had sacrificed himself, Caius 
ordered a slave to kill him. Opimius had offered, it is said, 
to pay its weight in gold for the head of Caius, but the slave 
obeyed his master and then slew himself. Thus perished the 
Gracci, who had attempted to relieve the Roman people from 
the ills of a corrupt government. 

About the time Caius Gracchus was being proscribed and 
slain a variety of conflicts was occurring in Italy and in the 
provinces. The small land areas created by Tiberius Grac- 
chus had been swallowed up in large estates; heavy taxes 
prevailed; the slaves were threatening rebellion; the seas 
SAvarmed with pirates, and the barbarians were threatening 
to invade the frontiers. 

While these dangers threatened, the attention of the sen- 
ate was directed to a conflict in Africa, the chief interest in 
which to-day is that it illustrates something of the extent of 
Roman corruption which then prevailed. Jugurtha, the 
nephew of Masinissa, on the latter's death, had murdered 
his two sons and made himself sole king of Numidia, a 
country which was an ally of Rome. A protest being made, 
commissioners were sent to settle the matter, who, however, 
sold themselves to Jugurtha as soon as they landed in Africa. 
The Roman people were incensed, and a war against the 
Numidian king declared. L. Calpernius Bestia, the consul 
in whose hands the conduct of the war was placed, on ar- 
riving in Africa also accepted Jugurtha's gold and made 
peace. Because of renewed indignation Jugurtha was sum- 
moned to Rome, and immediately came. When he appeared 
to make his statement a tribune who had also been bribed 
ordered him to desist. Meanwhile this Numidian having the 
audacity to cause the murder of another rival, grandson of 
Masinissa, then in Rome, was expelled and, returning to 
Africa, took command of his own army against the Romans. 



82 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

The new consul, Q. Caecilius Metullus, having chief com- 
mand, employed as his lieutenant Caius Marius, a soldier 
who had risen from the ranks, but whose success was so 
great that he was elected consul and superseded Metullus in 
the supreme command. His defeat of Jugurtha smacks of 
the latter's own methods. Marius sent Sulla, his quaestor, 
to Bocchus, King of Mauritania, and an ally of Jugurtha, 
to intimate that he might purchase the friendship of the Ro- 
mans by delivering Jugurtha to them. Despite the offer of 
a large sum by Jugurtha if he would deliver over Sulla to 
him, the advantages of a Roman alliance seemed so great 
that having invited the Numidian to an interview, he seized 
the latter, loaded him with chains and gave him up to Sulla. 
The name and wars of Jugurtha have been immortalized by 
Sallust. Jugurtha was exposed in Rome to the view of the 
people and dragged in chains to adorn the triumph of Ma- 
rius. He was afterwards placed in prison, where he died at 
the end of six days from hunger (106 B. C). 

While Marius was settling affairs in Africa the Teutons 
and Cimbri, among the fiercest of northern tribes, had 
pushed down from the southern part of Gaul and overrun 
the new province of Narbonensis, established the year fol- 
lowing the death of Caius Gracchus. It had been found very 
difficult to stay the course of these savages. In a battle 
fought at Arausia, near the Rhone, in 107 B. C, an army of 
eighty thousand Roman soldiers was destroyed ; and had the 
victors not stopped to ravage the country of southern Gaul, 
Rome itself might have been taken. 

Marius reached the banks of the Rhone with his army. 
The Cimbri had turned aside to plunder in Spain, but they 
soon returned and prepared to cross the Alps into the north- 
west of Italy, while the Teutons were moving to the same 
goal directly from the west. Against the latter Marius pro- 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 83 

jected his own army and sent his colleague, Q. Lutantius 
Catulus, to meet the Cimbri. In the battle of Aquae Sex- 
tiae, near Aix, he formed an ambuscade and annihilated the 
Teutonic hosts. The next day he received the news of his 
election for the fifth time to the consulship. Though it was 
contrary to law to re-elect a consul immediately after a term 
of service, the Romans seem to have believed that "in the 
midst of arms the laws are silent" (102 B. C). 

Meanwhile the Cimbri had crossed the Alps and driven 
Catulus across the Po. Marius hastened at the head of his 
victorious troops to join him and meet the invaders. The 
Cimbri, not knowing of the fate of the Teutons, sent depu- 
ties to the consul demanding lands and cities sufficient for 
themselves and brethren. 

Three days later a fierce battle occurred in what is now 
known as the Raudine Fields, to the south of Vercelli, where 
the Cimbri were nearly exterminated (101 B. C). 

Marius, given a magnificent triumph and hailed as a second 
Camillus and a third Romulus, was now at the height of 
popularity. None had ever surpassed him in this respect in 
Rome. The two principal aspirants for popular leadership 
were Saturninus and Glaucia, and with these Marius allied 
himself and was elected consul for the sixth time. Oppo- 
sition, urged on by certain senators, developed, however, and 
resulted in bloody tumults. The senate demanded that 
Marius as consul should put down the revolt. Loath to make 
war upon the people, his former friends, he reluctantly com- 
plied, and both his colleagues, Saturninus and Glaucia, were 
killed in the conflict. This threw him into disrepute and the 
senate took the reins of government. The Roman allies, 
though having furnished soldiers for the armies, had not re- 
ceived their rights as citizens and demanded that all Italians 
should have equal political rights. 



84 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

A tribune, M. Livitis Driisus, in order to please the people, 
proposed an increase in the largesses of grain, the introduc- 
tion of a cheap copper coin to possess the same value as the 
previous silver one, that jurors should be selected from both 
the senatorial and equites classes, and finally, that all Italians 
should be granted the Roman franchise. 

Attempting to begin by uniting equites and people to pass 
the first two of these laws, he found the senate violently op- 
posed and much violence ensued. Although the laws were 
passed, the senate declared them null and void. Ignoring 
this act of the senate, Drusus proposed that the assembly 
should grant the franchise to the Italians, but found himself 
opposed, and was later murdered by an unknown assassin. 
His death led the Italians to organize a separate republic, 
with the government at Corfinium, in the Apennines. It 
was modeled after that of Rome, with five hundred members 
in the senate, with two consuls and other officers, and in- 
cluded as its subjects nearly all the people of central and 
southern Italy. 

Rome was now thoroughly aroused. A hundred thousand 
men took the field against as many armed for rebellion. Ma- 
rius, made commander the first year, was, on account of his 
age, superseded the second year by L. Cornelius Sulla. An 
army under Pompeius Strabo captured Corfinium, the first 
capital ; and the second capital, Bovianum, was captured by 
Sulla. Three hundred thousand men lost their lives in the 
war, but Italy was permanently incorporated with Rome, and 
the following year (89 B. C.) practically all the inhabitants 
of the peninsula became citizens alike. 

And now is well illustrated the oft-time petty character of 
the human disposition when inflated with the possession of 
power. Marius was mortified that he should thus be super- 
seded by Sulla, and to regain his status with the people 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 85 

joined fortunes with the tribune P. Sulpicius Rufus, the 
most popular leader. By the aid of an armed force the "Sul- 
pician laws" were passed, displacing Sulla and turning the 
army over to Marius. At this unheard of procedure, Sulla 
appealed to his army, then in Campania, which responded 
favorably, and he marched upon Rome, settling the question 
in the streets of the capital. Marius and Sulpicius were ex- 
pelled, the laws passed by the latter annulled, and the senate 
clothed with power to approve or reject any law before sub- 
mitting it to the people. 

How Marius, as a wandering exile, was captured and con- 
demned to death at Minturia, how he over-awed the execu- 
tioner by asking if he dared "to kill Caius Marius," was or- 
dered away from the ruins of Carthage, where he had taken 
refuge, and then came back and took command of an army 
raised by his friend, the consul L. Cornelius Cinna, will be 
recalled as among the events which followed. 

Sulla had with his army gone to the East, so Marius and 
Cinna had little difficulty in capturing Rome. The gates 
were closed, and the ghastly head of the other consul, C. 
Octavius, friend of Sulla, was the first to be suspended in the 
Forum. Then the heads of the chief senators were hung up. 
Marius seems to have become a veritable madman reveling 
in slaughter. The city afforded a continuous performance of 
murder, plunder and outrage. No one was safe if friendly 
to Sulla; his supporters were slain on sight. Marius and 
Cinna declared themselves consuls. Fortunately, perhaps, 
Marius died shortly after entering upon this, his seventh 
consulship. Cinna continued to rule with despotic power. 
He renamed himself consul each year and selected his own 
colleague. Hearing of the approach of Sulla he determined 
to prevent his landing, but was killed by one of his own men 
(83 B.C.). 



86 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Sulla had gone to the East to save that part of the Roman 
domain from complete conquest. Mithridates the Sixth, or 
the Great, king of Pontus, taking advantage of the social war 
in Rome, and having caused a hundred thousand Italian resi- 
dents of Asia Minor to be massacred in a single day, sent his 
armies into Greece, and many of the cities there, including 
Athens, had declared in his favor. Sulla displayed here, per- 
haps, his greatest ability as a soldier. He repelled the army 
of Mithridates and laid siege to Athens, which surrendered 
after a long and valiant resistance (87 B. C.). Then he 
marched against the army of Archelaus, the most skillful 
general of Mithridates, encountering him at Chaeronea (86 
B. C.), and cut his army to pieces. 

Archelaus himself escaped and, reinforced with a still 
larger army, fortified himself at Orchomenus, where Sulla 
attacked him the following year. At the outset the engage- 
ment was unfavorable to the Romans. The vast number of 
the enemy threw them into consternation and they took to 
flight. Sulla, at the sight, dismounted and, seizing a stand- 
ard, advanced alone toward the foe, crying out : "When you 
Romans are asked where you abandoned your general, say 
at Orchomenus!" 

At this, his soldiers returned to the charge and put the 
barbarians to flight. Nearly the entire force of Archelaus 
was buried in the neighboring marshes, where they fled for 
refuge, and it was two days before Archelaus himself con- 
trived to escape. 

Mithridates now authorized Archelaus to make peace, and 
the latter being aware of the necessity which urged Sulla to 
return to Italy, where his party was being oppressed by that 
of Marius, offered him a large sum, sufficient to pay his ex- 
penses in Italy, if he would abandon the East to Mithridates. 

Sulla, on the contrary, urged Archelaus to make war on 



THE ITAUAN PENINSULA 87 

Mithridates, promising him his own assistance. Archelaus 
declared his detestation of such treachery. "What," ex- 
claimed Sulla, "do you, the minion of a barbarian king, re- 
gard it base to betray your master, yet dare to propose like 
treason to Sulla, a Roman general, as if you were not that 
Archelaus who concealed himself with the remnants of his 
army in the plains of Orchomenus ?" 

Abashed at this answer, Archelaus accepted the terms of- 
fered. Mithridates hesitated in signing the treaty, as it re- 
quired him to surrender his fleet. This irritated Sulla. 
"Why should your master cavil," he said to the deputies, 
"about the delivery of his ships, when he should have en- 
treated me on his knees to spare the hand which had signed 
the order for the death of so many Romans?" Mithridates 
yielded his conquests, his fleet consisting of eighty war ves- 
sels, and paid 3,000 talents ($3,750,000) indemnity (85 
B. C). 

Sulla's landing in Italy with a victorious army of forty 
thousand men, was the signal for civil war. The leaders of 
the party in power since the death of Cinna, where Gains 
Papirius, Q. Sertorius, and the younger Marius. Altogether 
he found fifteen generals and more than two hundred thou- 
sand men armed against him. But Sulla's reputation and the 
hatred entertained by many for the Marian faction, drew a 
crowd of soldiers to his standard. Among these were Pom- 
peius Strabo and Crassus. Sulla marched to Campania and 
defeated one consul, while the other consul's troops deserted 
to him in a body. Then he attacked young Marius in Lat- 
ium, routed his army and shut him up in the town of Prae- 
neste. Meanwhile northern Italy was held in check by Pom- 
pey, and a desperate battle was fought at Clusium in Etruria, 
where the forces of Sulla and Pompey defeated those of 
Garbo. The Samnite general, Telesinus, having evaded 



88 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Sulla and Pompey by a skillful march, formed the design of 
capturing Rome, which he knew to be defenseless. Without 
giving his own troops any rest Sulla followed and made an 
immediate attack upon the Samnites under the walls of 
Rome. The latter were defeated and six thousand prisoners 
were put to death. 

Sulla was now supreme ruler, and he seemed to emulate 
the disposition of Marius in the character of vindictive meas- 
ures. First he outlawed all the civic and military officers 
who had taken any part against him, offering a reward of 
two talents ($2,500) for the murder of each and every 
one. Accompanying this was a list of those he desired to 
have killed. There were eighty names on the first list, two 
hundred and twenty on the second, and these lists continued 
to be issued till nearly five thousand Roman citizens had 
been slain as the result of this proscription. Nor was this 
all. Similar lists were sent to every city in Italy. The his- 
torian Plutarch says: "Neither temple nor hospitable 
hearth, nor father's house, was free from murder." For 
many months the executions continued, and among the slain 
were ninety senators and more than two thousand knights. 
At Praeneste, Sulla having no time to examine each in- 
dividual, ordered all the people to be collected to the number 
of twelve thousand, and then slaughtered on the spot. The 
heads of many victims on Sulla's order were piled in the 
streets of Rome for execration, and the tomb of Marius was 
broken open and his ashes scattered. 

Besides these wholesale murders of his own fellow-citi- 
zens, Sulla confiscated the lands of Italy, destroyed cities, 
and laid whole districts waste. 

Sulla now made himself dictator, a device for the absolute 
power he coveted. All his previous acts were then con- 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 89 

firmed, and his twenty-three legions of soldiers were dis- 
banded and scattered through Italy, as citizens, yet subject 
to his commands. Thus Sulla fixed his power upon a mili- 
tary basis. 

The senate was restored to its position as a ruling body, 
its three hundred members to be elected from among the 
patricians. Jurors in criminal trials thereafter were to be 
taken from the senate, and no laws were to be passed by the 
assembly of the tribes until first approved by the senate. To 
keep control of the elections, Sulla enfranchised ten thou- 
sand slaves ("cornelii"), giving them the right to vote. Tri- 
bunes were allowed to "intercede" but not to vote. He also 
reformed the criminal courts. 

Sulla has been characterized as "a man of blood and iron." 
Resigning his dictatorship, after giving the government, as 
he supposed, safely into the hands of the senate, he retired 
to his villa at Pulioli, on the Bay of Naples, where he died the 
following year (78 B. C). as the result, it is said, of de- 
bauchery and licentiousness. 

Scarcely was the death of Sulla announced before one of 
the consuls, M. Aemilius Lepidus, aspiring to become leader 
of the popular party, proposed to restore the tribunes to their 
former prerogatives and rescind the Sullan constitution. 
With this plan, his colleague, Q. Lutatius Catulus, had no 
sympathy and raised strong opposition against it. The sen- 
ate, foreseeing serious difficulty, bound the two consuls un- 
der oath not to resort to arms, but Lepidus, despite his oath 
to the contrary, raised an army and marched upon Rome. 
Catulus, with the aid of Cneius Pompey, soon defeated him, 
however, a circumstance which brought the name of Pom- 
pey into considerable prominence (77 B. C). 

Q. Sertorius, a supporter of Marius, had escaped to Spain 
during the Sullan proscription. He was a man characterized 



90 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

as of noble character, prudent, generous and brave, as well as 
able in war. Many of the proscribed had taken refuge in 
Spain, and the native tribes were growing restless under the 
tyranny of Roman governors. Sertorius formed the plan of 
setting up an independent republic and delivering Spain 
from the power of Rome. This plan was agreed upon, and, 
seconded by the Lusitanians, he created a senate of three 
hundred members, organized the cities after the Italian 
model, and founded schools for instruction in the arts and 
one at Osca for classical culture. It was rumored among 
the Lusitanians that he was one favored by heaven and had 
received from Diana a white hind which told him the secrets 
of the future. 

Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius, being despatched against him 
with a large army, was promptly defeated, and then the 
young pro-consul Pompey was treated in the same manner, 
and might have lost his entire army had not Metellus come to 
his assistance. The story was circulated that Sertorius in a 
fit of wrath had caused the boys in his school at Osca to be 
put to death, and not long afterwards he was, in fact, mur- 
dered by one of his lieutenants, Perpenna. According to one 
account the Roman generals had put a price upon his head 
and he was assassinated at a feast (73 B. C). 

The Romans seem to have delighted in the display of 
bloody contests, and training schools existed in different 
parts of Italy for preparing gladiators for mortal combats in 
the arena. At Capua, in one of these prison schools, a brave 
Thracian named Spartacus, endowed with immense strength, 
incited his comrades to revolt. Rather than be "butchered to 
make a Roman holiday," "let us fight," he said, "against our 
oppressors !" 

Seventy of them escaped and made the crater of Vesuvius, 
which was then a dry bed, a stronghold. This body grew 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 91 

into an aggregation of one hundred thousand men, and, hav- 
ing equipped themseves with plundered arms, they seem to 
have placed all Italy at their mercy. They defeated four 
Roman armies in succession, but were finally routed by M. 
Crassus. Cneius Pompey meeting a remnant of five thou- 
sand of them on the banks of Silanus that were endeavoring 
to escape into Gaul, secured the honor of putting an end to 
the servile war. In this last combat the valiant Spartacus 
was slain. 

Owing largely to the decline of the Roman navy, the sea 
had become infested with pirates which preyed upon the 
cities of the Mediterranean coast, held up and plundered 
ships and had become a menace and terror to the nations. 
Their rendezvous extended from the island of Crete along 
the coast of Cilicia, and they cut off the supplies of grain to 
such an extent that Italy was threatened with a famine. In 
this emergency an extraordinary law was passed giving Pom- 
pey supreme control of the sea and its coasts for fifty miles 
inland for three years. He was also granted five hundred 
ships and as many men as he might desire. In fact this lex 
Cabinia gave him unlimited command of the nation's treas- 
ury and resources. But, as it proved, public confidence in him 
was not misplaced. As Cicero subsequently said : "Pompey 
had made his preparations for war at the end of the winter, 
began it in early spring and finished it in mid-summer." He 
captured three thousand vessels, and slew ten thousand of 
the enemy in the operation, besides taking twenty thousand 
prisoners, thus clearing the Mediterranean of this pest. 

While Rome was battling with Spartacus at home and Ser- 
torius in Spain, Mithridates had taken advantage of the situ- 
ation to attack the Roman provinces of Asia Minor. He laid 
siege to Cyzicus, an important town on the Propontis, when 
L. Lucinius Lucullus, having been despatched with an army 



92 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

from Rome, compelled him to abandon his enterprise. He 
destroyed the army of Mithridates at the passage of the 
GranicLis, where Alexander had defeated the Persian armies 
two hundred and sixty years previously. 

Lucullus, it appears, had but fifteen thousand men, but he 
boldly entered Armenia and ordered his army to advance. 
The Armenians were astonished at the onslaught of the Ro- 
mans, and their flight resulted in a slaughter. x\ccording to 
the reports, while the Romans lost but five killed and one 
wounded, the Armenians lost fifty thousand men. with the 
loss of the neighboring countries, and the capture of Tigra- 
nocerta, with all the royal treasures. 

Made wiser by his defeat, Tigranes, King of Armenia, 
turned over his command to Mithridates. who adopted the 
policy of harassing the Romans and cutting off their supplies. 
But Lucullus, discovering that Tigranes had deposited his 
chief treasures in Artaxata, marched against that city, thus 
causing the two kings to defend it. At the first onset the 
enemy fled, and this defeat resulted in the conquest of all of 
Armenia, 68 B. C. Lucullus being recalled to Rome, how- 
ever, the kings of Armenia and Pontus soon drove the in- 
experienced Roman leaders, with their small armies, out of 
the country. 

Rome becoming uneasy at the successes of this eastern 
king, a law was passed (lex Manilla. B. C. 66) recalling 
Lucullus and giving Pompey supreme control over all the 
Roman territory in the East. Thus authorized, Pompey, 
whose ambitions had been aroused by his previous successes, 
eagerly undertook the new enterprise. In one short cam- 
paign he almost annihilated the forces of the unfortunate 
monarch, who was abandoned by all his friends. His son- 
in-law, King Tigranes, not only refused his assistance, but 
even set a price upon his head. Mithridates had resolved to 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 93 

emulate Hannibal by carrying the war into Italy, but his 
soldiers revolted and refused to follow him. As if to settle 
the matter, they proclaimed his son, Pharnaces, king, who, it 
is said, was eager to deprive his father of both crown and 
life. In fact, Mithridates became at last the victim of 
parricide. 

Meanwhile Pompey invaded Syria and took possession of 
that kingdom. He next entered Judea, captured Jerusalem 
and took possession of Phoenicia, and reduced to Roman 
provinces all the countries beyond the Euphrates. He made 
peace with Pharnaces and Tigranes, and the latter became 
tributaries to the Roman republic (63 B. C). 

Sergius Cataline, a former partisan of Sulla's, and once 
praetor, had twice been defeated for the consulship. Smart- 
ing under these slights and ruined in fortune, he conceived 
the horrible design of murdering the senators, firing the city 
of Rome, seizing the wealth which might be secured from the 
city's treasury and plundering the rich. Fortunately for the 
state the conspiracy was disclosed by one of the conspirators 
to the consul, Cicero, who denounced him in his famous ora- 
tions, one of which was delivered in the Senate while Cata- 
line was present, and caused him to take refuge in his camp 
in Etruria. There he was defeated and slain with three thou- 
sand of his followers. Five of his fellow-conspirators were 
subsequently condemned to death, and Cicero put the Sen- 
ate's order into execution (62 B. C). 

On returning to Italy from his eastern conquests, Pompey, 
like Sulla previously, was given a magnificent triumph. Un- 
like Sulla, however, he disbanded his army at the seashore, 
thinking the merit of the victories he had achieved would 
induce the senate to confirm his treaties in the East and re- 
ward his veterans with grants of land. 

The influence of Lucullus, who had been deposed in the 



94 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

same field, prevailed with the senate. However, the latter 
declined to confirm Pompey's acts or reward his soldiers, and 
thus Pompey came to have a grievance against that body. 

It happened that another individual, one Gains Julius 
Caesar, also had a pique against the Senate. Caesar had 
been refused a triumph on his return from Spain, and, hav- 
ing held the offices of military tribune, quaestor, aedile, pon- 
tifex maximus, and praetor, he felt his dignity insulted. Ac- 
cordingly, Caesar and Pompey entered into a coalition, to 
which Crassus, another aspirant for wealth and honor, was 
admitted. 

By the power of these three men (Triumvirs), Caesar was 
first made consul, then all the acts of Pompey in the East 
were confirmed, and an agrarian law passed providing for 
his veterans, and which also assigned sections of land in 
Campania to needy Roman citizens. A law remitting one- 
third the amount successful bidders had offered for the 
privilege of collecting the taxes of Asia, was especially pleas- 
ing to Crassus, and to certain capitalists involved in the 
transaction. Caesar, as consul, was notable for the amount 
he accomplished. At the close of his term Caesar was made 
governor of Cisalpine Gaul, which then meant little more 
than the valley of the Po ; Illyricum, a strip north of Mace- 
donia across the Adriatic Sea, and Norbonensis, a territory 
about the lower part of the Rhone. 

In selecting Gaul for his province, Caesar must have de- 
cided that Rome thereafter should be a military power which 
would control the political ; that Gaul being the nearest prov- 
ince in which to attain military prestige, the conquest of 
Gaul was necessary to the protection of Rome, as it had al- 
ready been twice invaded from the north, and finally, that 
Rome and Italy, overcrowded, needed new lands for coloni- 
zation. 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 95 

Within the period of eight years he brought under Roman 
authority all the territory bounded by the Rhine, Alps, the 
Pyrenees and the Atlantic, or what now corresponds to a part 
of Switzerland, the whole of France, Belgium, and a part 
of Holland. According to his own Commentaries, he first 
conquered the Helvetii, north of Narbonensis. This stirred 
up Ariovistus, a German leader, who crossed the Rhine and 
threatened the conquest of the province, and whom Caesar 
was compelled to meet and repulse. Then the Nervii were 
subdued in northern Gaul, with other tribes. Next he con- 
quered the Veneti cm the Atlantic coast and subdued Aqui- 
tania. In 55 B. C, he made his first invasion of Britain, 
landing at Deal, nearest France, and in another expedition 
the following year conquered a part of the country. Then 
Caesar quelled an insurrection and completed the conquest 
of Gaul, a conquest among the most important events of the 
world's history (51). 

It was a favorite method with Roman politicians, and not 
entirely obsolete even in this day, to have political rivals re- 
moved with as little friction and public notice as possible. 
Cicero and Cato were the most influential men in the senate, 
and it seems to have been the function assigned to one Clo- 
dius, a tribune, whose hostility to the senate could be de- 
pended upon, to stay their influence. Cyprus having been 
annexed to the Roman domain, Cato was disposed of by be- 
ing appointed governor to that island. Clodius then suc- 
ceeded in passing a law that any judge guilty of putting a 
Roman citizen to death without trial should be banished, and 
as this clearly referred to the execution of Cataline's asso- 
ciates by Cicero, the latter retired to Greece and devoted 
himself to literature. 

The bonds holding the Triumvirate together were weak- 
ening. Crassns, after taking control of his province in 



96 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Syria, formed the plan of making war against Parthia, with 
the design of pursuing his conquests into India, where he ex- 
pected to secure great treasures. He had already pillaged 
the temple at Jerusalem, and to the complaint of the Parthian 
king that the treaty of neutrality between them had been 
violated Crassus sent word that he would answer when at 
Selencia, the Parthian capital. Marching along the Eu- 
phrates, and conveying his supplies by boats on the river, he 
was induced to turn aside into the plains of Mesopotamia, 
where in a few days he found himself in an arid desert with- 
out water or provisions. Near Carrae he was attacked by 
the Parthians and compelled to retreat. Surena, the Par- 
thian general, under a pretext of making peace, drew him 
into a conference and seized his person. In vain his guards 
tried to defend Crassus. They and their general were slain. 
The cupidity and ambition which had led him to engage in 
an unrighteous war had resulted in a shameful death. 

Pompey had been appointed "sole consul" in order to 
meet an emergency. The city had been distracted by street 
broils between armed bands of men, one in the interests of 
Clodius, and the other followers of T. Ammus Milo, w^ho 
claimed to be defending the Senate. Clodius was killed in 
one of these conflicts, his body was burned in the Forum by 
the infuriated mob, and the senate house set on fire and con- 
sumed. Pompey restored order, and was so highly regarded 
for this act that the senate renewed his authority in Spain 
for five years. 

The death of Crassus destroyed the equilibrium in the re- 
lations of Pompey and Caesar. Each wished to reign and 
to reign alone, and Pompey's appointment as sole consul, 
however urgent, was not calculated to allay any feelings of 
jealousy which might exist in the mind of Caesar. Caesar 
remembered this at a meeting in Lucca (56 B. C), where the 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 97 

triple alliance was renewed; it was there agreed that he 
should receive the consulship at the close of his last five years 
in Gaul, and Caesar wished to retain control of his army till 
elected to that office. Cato had threatened to prosecute him 
as soon as he ceased to be pro-consul. Accordingly, Caesar 
asked the privilege of being, while absent from Rome, a can- 
didate for the following year. He offered to give up his 
province and his army if Pompey would do likewise, but 
Pompey declined to do so. 

The senate now asked Caesar for two of his legions to use 
in the Parthian war. Caesar complied, but instead of being 
sent to the East they were stationed in Campania. Caesar 
was then asked to send more of his legions, and he agreed to 
give up eight more, if permitted to retain two in Cisalpine 
Gaul till the time of election. The senate would not accede 
to this and declared that he must relinquish his province and 
entire army by a certain date or be regarded as a public 
enemy. It was war or peace, and he chose war. 

Assembling his troops he crossed the Alps, and, arriving 
at the banks of the Rubicon, the stream separating his prov- 
ince, he is reported to have said : "What misery may I bring 
upon my country if I pass this river, but to hesitate is to 
lose. The die is cast. The injustice of my enemies calls 
me." Crossing the river he hastened to Rimini, which he 
seized. Pompey, unprepared for so sudden a move, as he 
could not rely upon the two legions which the senate had 
taken from Caesar, withdrew to Brundisium. Caesar fol- 
lowed, but Pompey managed to escape to Dyrrachium, and 
as Caesar had no fleet, he returned to Rome. The citizens 
there recalled the proscription of Sulla, but Caesar's mod- 
eration reassured them, and, in fact, brought him many 
supporters. 

Pompey had an army with him in Greece and another in 



98 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Spain under his lieutenants ; so Caesar was between the two. 
Having no fleet he despatched his Gallic legions across the 
Pyrenees into Spain, and, after quieting the fears of the 
Roman people, joined his army, there besieged Marseilles, 
and soon defeated the forces under lieutenants of Pompey. 
On returning to Rome he found himself proclaimed dic- 
tator, an office he modestly declined, contenting himself with 
that of consul. 

In October, 49 B. C, Caesar, having collected his army 
and what ships he could, transported his army into Epirus. 
Pompey had meanwhile assembled a powerful army at Dyr- 
rachium, and in the first attack Caesar was repulsed. Re- 
treating then across the peninsula, in order to draw Pompey 
away from his supplies, Caesar awaited his pursuing army 
at Pharsalia in Thessaly, where their forces joined battle 
May 12, 48 B. C. Caesar had but twenty thousand men, 
and Pompey double that number, but, perceiving that Pom- 
pey's cavalry were superior in numbers and efficiency, Cae- 
sar placed six cohorts of infantry, especially equipped, behind 
his own few squadrons of horse in order to throw the en- 
emy's horse into disorder when they should attempt to turn 
his flank. He expressly told these cohorts that upon them 
he relied for victory. As Pompey anticipated, his cavalry 
easily put that of Caesar to flight, but then advancing to 
turn the flank, they were thrown into irretrievable disorder, 
and these six cohorts continuing their charge upon the in- 
fantry, with Caesar's other cohorts closing in from all sides, 
the result was a rout of Pompey's forces. "The battle of 
Pharsalos," says Freeman, "is one of the most important 
battles in history, as it really ended the Roman Common- 
wealth, and began the Roman Empire, which we may almost 
say has gone on ever since." 

Pompey fled in the dress of a civilian from the battlefield 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 99 

of Pharsalos to the mouth of the Peneus, where he sailed 
for Egypt, expecting to find a friend in King Ptolemy, 
whom he had previously instructed and assisted. But Ptol- 
emy, basely, thought this an opportunity to gain the friend- 
ship of Ceasar. Pompey was invited to land, and then, in 
sight of his wife, Cornelia, was murdered in cold blood. 

Caesar set out from Greece in pursuit of Pompey, and was 
greatly shocked on arriving in Alexandria to find his late 
rival killed and his head presented to him. The great con- 
queror is reported to have shed tears at the sight. Shortly 
afterwards, as a result of a different form of emotion, he 
was fascinated by the charms of Cleopatra and adjudged her 
the crown of Egypt in place of her brother, Ptolemy. Highly 
displeased at this, Ptolemy, with a strong army, attacked 
Caesar who entrenched himself in the palace at Alexandria. 
Though having less than four thousand men, the Roman 
general successfully resisted till reinforcements arrived, 
when his legions charged and put the entire Egyptian army 
to the sword. Ptolemy was drowned in the river Nile, thus 
rewarded for the murder of his friend Pompey, his former 
tutor and benefactor. 

On his way back to Rome, Caesar passed through Asia 
Minor, where, as he had been informed, Pharnaces, the son 
and assassin of Mithridates, late king of Pontus, was stir- 
ring up a revolt in that kingdom. His progress was so rapid 
and so quickly did he destroy the army of Pharnaces and 
restore order in the Asiatic provinces, that he made his re- 
port in the famous words : "Veni, vidi, znci." Returning to 
Rome, Caesar was made dictator for ten years. 

The Pompeian leaders in Africa, including Cato, great- 
grandson of Cato the Elder, and Mettelus Scipio, were not 
yet subdued. Pompey's former lieutenant, Labienus, was 
also in Egypt, and with the assistance of the King of Nu- 



100 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

midia these officers determined to make a last stand against 
the conqueror. 

In this expedition, when Caesar landed on the African 
shore, it is said he fell prostrate; but to prevent any infer- 
ence of ill-omen, he cried out: "Africa, I seize thee!" — a 
claim which subsequent events sustained. At the battle of 
Thapsus, Cato, held in the bounds of Utica, resolved not to 
survive the ruin of his party. While reflecting on the phil- 
osophy of the Phoedo, Plato's dialogue on the immortality of 
the soul, he ended his life by throwing himself on his sword 
(46 B.C.). 

Following the battle of Thapsus, Labienus had gone to 
Spain to take command of one of the armies which the two 
sons of Pompey had mustered in that province. Caesar 
hastened thither and found the enemy entrenched in the 
southern part of the province, near the city of Munda. The 
battle occurred March 17, 45 B. C. The first charges of his 
troops were unfavorable, and Caesar, it is said, on seeing his 
legions give way, seized a shield and advanced within ten 
paces of the enemy. This had the effect of reanimating his 
veterans, and the camp of the Pompeians, as well as the town 
of Munda was taken by assault. The Pompeians lost thirty 
thousand men and Caesar but fifteen hundred killed and 
wounded. One of the sons of Pompey was slain with Labi- 
enus, and the fate of the other son was probably the same, as 
he was never heard of afterwards (45 B. C). 

The victory at Munda may be said to have given peace to 
the whole world, as Caesar controlled Rome and had no 
more enemies to subdue. On his return four splendid tri- 
umphs were given him — one for Gaul, one for Egypt, one for 
Pontus, and one for Numidia. No reference to the civil 
war was made and no Roman citizens were in the procession 
of his captives. No massacres, no proscriptions, no confisca- 



THE ITALIAN PENINSULA 101 

tions followed. Caesar was great enough to forgive his 
enemies and to grant equal rights to friend and foe alike. 

Caesar reformed the provincial system by making each 
governor directly responsible to the dictator, thus putting 
a check upon the system of robbery in the collection of taxes. 
He reformed the calendar in a way which has been accepted 
to the present day. He ordered the rebuilding of Carthage 
and of Corinth, and his plans included codifying the Roman 
laws, providing for public libraries, improving the city archi- 
tecture, draining the Pontine marshes, cutting a canal 
through the Isthmus of Corinth, and extending the empire 
to the Euphrates, the Danube and the Rhine. 

He reduced the number of persons in Rome to whom 
grain was distributed from three hundred and twenty thou- 
sand to one hundred and fifty thousand, because he believed 
the government should not help those able to provide for 
themselves. He provided means of employment for the idle 
by constructing new buildings and other public works, and 
enforced the law requiring one-third the labor on landed 
estates to be free labor, and enacted a bankrupt law by which 
a debtor could escape imprisonment by turning over any 
property he possessed to his creditors. 

He believed that one man should control in government, 
but for the benefit of all. He enlarged the senate to nine 
hundred members, of all classes — sons of freedmen as well 
as nobles; Gauls and Spaniards as well as military officers. 
It was to be a body for advising the sovereign of the needs 
of all sections, and he extended the franchise to the utmost 
limits of the realm. 

Caesar was made perpetual dictator, while the titles of 
"Imperator" and "Father of his Country" were voted to 
him. Public buildings and temples were filled with his stat- 
ues, while religious rites, festivals and sacrifices were de- 



102 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

creed to him. It is said that the senate granted such ex- 
travagant honors for the purpose of making him odious with 
the people, and that, not seeing the snare, Caesar allowed 
himself to be dazzled and misled. 

He had contemplated a war against the Parthians to 
avenge the death of Crassus. According to the Sibylline 
books it was pretended the Parthians could be conquered 
only by a king, and so it was proposed that Caesar should 
bear the title of Dictator in Italy but King in all the coun- 
tries conquered. This proposition led to a conspiracy in- 
stigated by Brutus, Cassius and others, all of whom were 
more or less under obligations to Caesar. 

The day this title was to be conferred Caesar was slain. 
When he entered, the senate arose as if from respect. Cim- 
ber, a chief conspirator, approached as if to offer a petition, 
which Caesar seemed unwilling to receive. Cimber seized 
his robe and pulled it from his shoulders. At this, the sig- 
nal agreed upon, the conspirators threw themselves upon 
Caesar in a body. He fell, pierced with twenty-three wounds, 
and expired at the foot of Pompey's statue. 

While it cannot be denied that Caesar aimed to be an ab- 
solute Dictator of Rome, neither can it be denied that his 
plans and purposes were the broadest and wisest ever pre- 
sented for the government of that domain. While he had 
destroyed the lives of perhaps a million men in battle abroad 
and many thousands in the civil wars at home, measured 
both as a soldier and a statesman, he has rarely been sur- 
passed in all history. 



CHAPTER HI. 

THE ROMAN EMPIRE. 

A period of much confusion, lasting for some thirteen 
years, followed the death of Julius Caesar. His murderers 
had expected the Roman people to hail them as deliverers 
from a despot, but it did not prove so. Marcus Antonius 
made a speech over his body as it lay in the Forum, which 
aroused the wrath of the citizens against Caesar's enemies, 
terrified the Senate and made the army furious. Octavius, 
the grand-nephew and adopted son of Caesar, was in Greece 
when he heard of his uncle's fate, and as was proper for the 
heir to do, he shortly afterwards presented himself in Rome, 
and used a considerable part of his inherited wealth in se- 
curing partisans and increasing his own popularity. Antony, 
as consul, and because of his military connections, possessed 
almost absolute authority. But he wisely decided to unite 
his fortunes with Octavius, and they joined to themselves 
Lepidus, a wealthy man of but slight genius, thus constitut- 
ing what is known as the second Roman Triumvirate. 

Later, the friendly relations between Octavius and An- 
tony were broken and Octavius was successful in defeating 
Antony at the battle of Mutina, in that part of Cisalpine 
Gaul which Antony was then trying to wrest from Decimus 



104 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Brutus. Because of this victory Octavius demanded from 
the senate that he receive a triumph and the consulship. To 
this Cicero demurred, as he really intended Brutus to have 
this honor. Whereupon Octavius took possession of the city 
and enforced his claims with the sword. Then the new 
coalition was made, and the western provinces were divided 
among themselves with the understanding that the eastern 
provinces should be similarly treated after Brutus and Cas- 
sius had been driven out. 

It will be recalled how Cicero was put to death December 
7, 43 B. C, many other senators, knights and citizens being 
proscribed and slain; how Cassius and Brutus, being de- 
feated in two battles at Phillippi, each committed suicide, 
and how Cleopatra, having gained an ascendency over An- 
tony at Tarsus in Cilicia, took him away to Egypt with her. 
Meanwhile (41 B. C), Octavius had defeated Antony's 
brother Lucius in a short war in Persia, and Lepidus, who 
had been expelled from the triumvirate. Antony having 
repudiated Octavia, his wife, and sister of Octavius at Ath- 
ens, Octavius set sail with a fleet of nearly three hundred 
vessels and met and defeated the combined fleets of Antony 
and Cleopatra near the promontory of Actium, the Egyptian 
ships withdrawing from the battle at a critical juncture. 
This led to the suicide of Antony in the arms of his mistress, 
and to that of Cleopatra herself. 

Egypt now became a Roman province, and Octavius. or 
Augustus — as he chose to have himself called — master of the 
world. Consul for the third time in 29 A. D., in command 
of all the Roman armies, "Prince of the Senate," he was 
made censor, while the office of tribune made his person in- 
violable, that of pro-consul gave him authority over all the 
provinces, and finally that of supreme pontiff, which came 
to him at the death of Lepidus, gave him complete authority 



THE ROMAN EMPIRE 105 

in matters of religion. Augustus has, by many historians, 
been regarded as a wise and successful statesman, and a chief 
reason for this view is the fact that he was not cruel by na- 
ture, strove to promote culture and the arts of peace, and 
administer justice. That he did strive to extend his domain 
by force of arms, is true, though, to avoid making his army 
a burden to the people, he reduced the number of his legions 
from fifty to twenty-five, thus maintaining a standing army 
of about one hundred and fifty thousand men. 

One of the regrets of his life was the defeat of his legions 
under Varus in Germany, by the Teuton chief, Arminius, 
which event prevented the extension of the empire farther 
north and really led to its overthrow. This happened in the 
year 9 A. D., in the neighborhood of Detmold, the capital 
of Lippe-Detmold. A monument stands at Grotenburg, the 
highest point of the Teutoburger Wald, 1,200 feet above sea 
level, a colossal statue of Hermann, or Arminius, Chief of 
the Cherusci, commemorative of his victory over the Ro- 
mans. For eight years the Gauls had struggled against the 
Roman armies, and their great chieftain, Vincingetorix, who 
had brought Caesar to the extremity of peril at Alesia, after 
gracing the latter's triumph in the streets of Rome, had been 
butchered in a dungeon. This Arminius knew and dis- 
trusted the plans of the Roman general, Tiberius, as well as 
those of his successor, Varus, and secretly resolved to thwart 
them. The policy of Augustus, if more pacific than that of 
his predecessors, was no less imperious. Besides completing 
the conquest of Spain, his generals had extended the Roman 
frontier to the Danube, and had brought into subjection all 
the territory south of that river now belonging to Austria, 
as well as East Switzerland, Lower Wertemberg, the Tyrol, 
Batavia and the Valtelline. To the list of great rivers con- 
trolled by the Romans, the Nile, the Tagus, the Seine, the 



106 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Rhone, the Danube and the Rhine, it was desired now to add 
the Elbe, when all Germany would become no more than a 
mere vassal to Roman authority. Arminius had, too, a per- 
sonal reason for his hatred of Rome, as his wife had been 
taken from him by her father, and he himself accused of 
treason, while his brother Flavius could not be induced to 
leave the Roman service as a soldier. Arminius is given 
credit for the secret organization of armed men who were 
to strike when he gave the signal, and also for the revolt of 
the tribes near the Wesser and the Ems, duly reported to 
Varus as requiring his immediate attention. This message 
came just after a succession of heavy rains, which made 
military movements very difficult. 

Varus, with three legions — about 15,000 Roman infantry, 
some nine hundred cavalry, and an equal number of allied 
forces from the conquered territory — set his army in motion 
eastward in a line parallel with the course of the Lippe river. 
In the vast forests of what now constitutes the little princi- 
pality of Lippe, the soil partly sodden with rain at the time, 
Arminius made his attack. All the auxiliary forces of Va- 
rus at once deserted him. According to the meager accounts 
derived chiefly from Tacitus, the horses were killed first. 
This was due somewhat to the fact that the cavalry general. 
Numonius Vala, attempted to escape with his squadrons. 
The riders as well as their steeds were all cut to pieces. 
Varus himself, after being wounded, committed suicide 
rather than fall into the enemies' hands. One lieutenant gen- 
eral surrendered, but according to report he and his men 
were sacrificed in a gorge in the mountain ridge, through 
which runs a road between Panderborn and Pyrmont. Here, 
according to tradition, stood one of the sacred groves. After 
the destruction of the army of Varus, the Roman garrisons 
throughout Germany were assailed and cut ofif, and in a few 



THE ROMAN EMPIRE 107 

weeks the German soil was freed from the Roman invader. 

Arminius was assassinated in the thirty-seventh year of 
his age by some of his own kindred, but a peculiar sequence 
of his great victory was that Arminius came to be wor- 
shipped as a savior of mankind. In the language of Prof. 
Creasy: "As time passed on, the gratitude of ancient Ger- 
many to her great deliverer grew into adoration, and divine 
honors were paid for centuries to Arminius by every tribe 
of the Low Germanic division of the Teutonic races. The 
Irmin-sul, or the column of Hermann, near Eresbergh, the 
modern Stadtberg, was the chosen object of worship to the 
descendants of the Cherusci, the old Saxons, and in defense 
of which they fought most desperately against Charlemagne 
and his Christianized Franks." "Irmin, in the cloudy Olym- 
pus of Teutonic belief," says Palgrave, "appears as a king 
and a warrior, and the pillar, the 'Irmin-sul,' bearing the 
statue, and considered as the symbol of the deity, was the 
Palladium of the Saxon nation until the temple of Eres- 
bergh was destroyed by Charlemagne, and the column itself 
transferred to the monastery of Corbey." 

The reign of Augustus, though comparatively peaceful, 
was marked by the conquests of Drusus, of Cantabria, Rhae- 
tia, Vindelicia and Moesia. These conquests were com- 
pleted by Drusus, son of Tiberius, under his father's reign, 
while the territorial gains of Germanicus (nephew of Ti- 
berius) in Germany, which had been lost by Varus, were in 
part regained by the same after Tiberius came to the throne 
in 14 A. D. The reigns of the Julian emperors, so called 
from their relation to Julius Caesar, and which ended with 
the suicide of Nero in 68 A. D., were more marked by petty 
intrigues and cruelties than foreign conquests. 

Of the four who succeeded Augustus, Tiberius was per- 
haps the ablest, though not deficient in the exercise of tyran- 



108 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

nical power. He established the system of espionage, and 
also brought together a body of praetorian cohorts, both 
measures with a view of protecting his own person. Sejanus, 
commander of these cohorts, taking advantage of the Em- 
peror's confidence, caused the murder of Tiberius' son, 
Drusus, and committed other treacherous acts with a view to 
his own advancement, but his plans were discovered and he 
was strangled. Such a vigorous prosecution of those asso- 
ciated in the conspiracy and under suspicion followed, under 
the law of Lex majestatis. or lese-majesty, as to induce a 
reign of terror in Rome. 

Caligula, selected by the senate to rule because he was the 
son of a successful general. Germanicus, well illustrates what 
an insane man may do when in power. 

Claudius, brother of Germanicus and uncle of Caligula, 
who, with his generals, Aulus Plautius and Vespasian, made 
a partial conquest of Britain (43-45 A. D.), though a wiser 
ruler in some respects, was a victim of his freedmen and his 
wives. One of these freed slaves, Narcissus, caused the em- 
press, Messalina, mother of Claudius' two children, to be put 
to death. Claudius then married his niece, Agrippina, daugh- 
ter of Germanicus, who induced the emperor to adopt her son 
Nero, by a former marriage, as his successor. Whether she 
poisoned the legitimate heir, Britannicus, or whether this was 
done by Nero, is uncertain, but it is unquestioned that her 
imperious temper led Nero to have her stabbed to death. 
This was one of the first of Nero's crimes, and is said to have 
been inspired by Poppaea, "the most beautiful and wickedest 
woman in Rome." Then followed the murder of his first 
wife, Octavia; Poppaea, his second; Seneca, his former in- 
structor; the poet Lucan, and thousands of Roman citizens. 
To his reign is credited the first persecution of the Chris- 
tians, the burning: of Rome, and the defeat of the Parthians 



THE ROMAN EMPIRE 109 

in Armenia by Corbiilo. The last three Julian emperors all 
met violent deaths: Caligula was murdered by Chaereas, 
Claudius poisoned by Agrippina, and Nero, after planning to 
kill all his own generals and senators, in order to anticipate 
a decree of the senate, slew himself with his sword. 

The power and arrogance of the army was now displayed 
in the fact that three emperors in succession, Galba, Otho and 
Vitellius (68-69 A. D.), were created by one factor or an- 
other of the military forces. The army in Spain proclaimed 
Galba, a man of seventy, of patrician birth and a fine record 
as a military man, but the legions of the Rhine were against 
him, and one of his former lieutenants, Otho, who had been 
the husband of the infamous Poppaea Sabina, caused Galba 
to be murdered through a revolt of the praetorian soldiers 
and secured the title of emperor himself. The armies of 
Germany having proclaimed another general, Vitellius, em- 
peror, the clash of these forces, as they met to decide the 
question in north Italy, was favorable to Vitellius. This 
was the battle of Bedriacum, where Otho, seeing himself 
vanquished, committed suicide, his reign having lasted for 
but three months. Almost immediately the legions of the 
East revolted in favor of their commander, Vespasian, and 
on the same battlefield in northern Italy where Otho's army 
was overcome were the forces of Vitellius defeated. Thus 
the most famous glutton in all history, who spent on his table 
more than forty million dollars during his brief reign of 
eight months, and whose voracity would shortly have ruined 
the empire, was killed by the Roman people. 

Vespasian, head of the Flavian family, proved himself an 
efficient ruler. He had but recently subdued the whole of 
Palestine, and after the suppression of a revolt in Gaul under 
Claudius Civillius, his son Titus completed the work of de- 
stroying Jerusalem. One million, one hundred thousand 



110 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

persons are estimated to have perished miserably in the siege, 
and the remaining inhabitants were dispersed and scattered 
among all nations. Vespasian built the Colosseum, expelled 
from the senate those members conspicuous for their vices, 
reformed the tribunals, and, above all else, enforced military 
discipline. In his reign, Lycia, Rhodes, Thrace, Cilicia, By- 
zantium and Samos were conquered. During the reign of 
his son and successor, Titus, much was done by way of erect- 
ing places of amusement and giving spectacles to increase the 
happiness of the people. 

The chief event of importance in the reign of Domitian 
(81-96) was the extension of the Roman power by Julius 
Agricola in Britain (86 A. D.), though, fearful lest his 
achievements might make him too popular, the cowardly 
Domitian ordered him home. Agricola's son-in-law, Taci- 
tus, has left us a contrast between the virtues of the lieu- 
tenant and the vices of the emperor. The second persecu- 
tion of Christians is recorded in the reign of Domitian. 

The reigns of the "five good emperors," Nerva, Trajan, 
Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius, though mark- 
ing a period of general prosperity, were not devoid of strife 
and warfare. Nerva, a native of Crete, was chosen by the 
senate, and during the two years of his reign peace prevailed. 
He recalled exiles, freed many prisoners, and prohibited per- 
secutions of the Christians. At his death he named his suc- 
sessor, Trajan, regarded as the most accomplished, with the 
possible exceptions of Julius Caesar and Augustus, of the 
Roman rulers. Trajan was Spanish by birth, and not averse 
to war. He reduced Dacia to a Roman province; also Ar- 
menia, Mesopotamia, Assyria and a part of Arabia. Under 
Trajan the Roman empire reached its greatest extent. The 
third persecution of Christians (107 A. D.) is said to have 
occurred under Trajan, and he was especially severe upon 



THE ROMAN EMPIRE 111 

the Jews of Cyrene who had murdered 200,000 of his sub- 
jects. Trajan constructed roads, improved the water sup- 
ply, restored the harbors, built new baths, and made Rome a 
city of magnificent public buildings. His adopted son, Ha- 
drian, who succeeded him (117), was averse to war for the 
purpose of foreign conquest as less essential than the main- 
tainance of internal prosperity. He voluntarily abandoned 
the conquests of Trajan in the East, including the provinces 
of Assyria, Armenia and Mesopotamia, and only against the 
Jews, who revolted during his reign (135), did he display 
warlike severity. In being banished from Judea, it is said 
that 580,000 Jews were destroyed by the Roman soldiers. 
He erected a temple to Jupiter in the new Jerusalem which 
he built. A wall was also built during his reign from New- 
castle to Carlisle in Britain, to head off the Caledonians. 
The career of Hadrian's adopted son and successor, Antoni- 
nus Pius (138-161 A. D.), is cited in history as a "reign 
without events," because so devoid of conquests, calamities 
and internal discord. However, the laws which were to be 
embodied in the constitutions of future nations were per- 
fected by the maxims of Antonius Pius and the jurists of his 
empire. During the reign of his adopted son and successor, 
Marcus Aurelius (161-180 A. D.), one of the wisest of the 
Roman rulers, the empire began to be threatened by con- 
spiracies within and invasions from without. The emperor 
was made to believe that the Christians through their secret 
meetings were responsible for these internal troubles and so 
issued edicts against them. He also repelled the invasion of 
the Parthians and the Teutonic hordes of the West who be- 
gan to press upon the borders of the empire. A war with 
Parthia was waged for three years, one with the Marcom- 
anni, five years ; also wars with the Quadi, the Goths and the 
Franks. 



112 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

With the death of Marcus Aurelius at his post of duty in 
camp at Vienna, the turning point in the career of the em- 
pire had been reached. During the period of the Military 
Despotism, beginning with the reign of Commodus (180), 
to the accession of Diocletian (284) there was a gradual de- 
cline. The factors which had contributed to national growth 
through the conquest and control of foreign elements now 
began to give way before the agitation and encroachment of 
these and other elements from without. During these years 
(104 in number) the soldiers were the real rulers of Rome, 
and the events well illustrate what a pure military despotism 
is bound sooner or later to become — an exponent of mere 
force and brutality. Commodus purchased the peace of the 
Germans, and, a giant in strength, sought to amuse himself 
with cruelties and debaucheries ; he was poisoned by a woman 
with whom he was enamored and whom in a fit of anger he 
had previously condemned to death. Pertinax, his successor, 
was elected by the army, and slain by the swords of the 
soldiers. Didius Julianus bought the throne at auction for a 
sum equal to $15,000,000, and from a commercial point of 
view was not fairly treated, as he held the throne about two 
months, and was then condemned to death by the senate. 
Septimus Severus, though he reorganized and strengthened 
the army, removed the last vestige of authority from the 
senate. His reign is distinguished for the fifth persecution 
of the Christians, the death of 50,000 of his soldiers serving 
under his sons, Caracalla and Geta, in Britain, through 
plaene, and the building of a wall across Britain from the 
Firth of Forth (209). Caracalla's reign is conspicuous for 
crrel proscriptions and murders, of which the foulest was 
that of Papinian, the greatest of Roman jurists, on account 
of the refusal of the latter to defend the emperor in his 



THE ROMAN EMPIRE 113 

crimes. Caracalla was killed by his successor, Macrinus, 
who was himself killed by the soldiers the following year. 
Elevated to the throne by the same soldiers, Heliogabalus, 
cousin to Caracalla and high priest of the sun in Syria, stands 
forth for effeminacy, debauchery, brutality and contempt of 
all forms of honor and decency, as the most infamous and 
repulsive of all the Roman despots. Despite his insane pro- 
jects for committing suicide "in splendor," he was ignomini- 
ously slaughtered. 

Alexander Severus (322-235 A. D.) affords a strong con- 
trast to his predecessor, and in fact to a majority of the mil- 
itary despots in the praiseworthy character of his public acts 
as well as personal life. He had engraved on his palace 
walls : "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," 
and made this his rule of conduct. The distinguished jurists 
Ulpian and Paullus were his advisers. He successfully re- 
sisted the Persians who had established a new kingdom in 
Parthia, and was engaged in driving back the Germans when 
he met the usual fate — was assassinated by Maximin, who 
had a military following strong enough to make himself 
emperor. He was of gigantic size and strength, and rivals 
Vitellius in the accounts of his voracity. He is said to have 
consumed eight bottles of wine and forty pounds of meat 
every day. On assuming the diadem he put to death all his 
early associates who knew him as a common soldier, includ- 
ing his most intimate friends. The sixth persecution of 
Christians is credited to his reign. He met the usual fate — 
was assassinated by his troops near Aquileia (236 A. D.). 

Of the next eleven emperors, Gordian I and Gordian H 
were put to death by Pupienus Maximus, who, with Balbinus, 
after brief reigns, shared the same fate. Gordian HI routed 
the Persians, while his tribune, Aurelius, vanquished the 



114 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Franks at Mayence ; then Gordian was put to death by Phil- 
ippus the Arab, to be himself killed and succeeded by Decius. 
who was slain by the Goths, 251 A. D. Gallus, an officer 
under Decius, having proclaimed himself emperor and con- 
cluded a disgraceful peace with the Goths, was duly mur- 
dered by his own soldiers, who acknowledged Aemilian as 
emperor, but soon served him in the same way. The next 
emperor. Valerian, was captured by Sapor I, King of Per- 
sia, and after languishing for three years in abject slavery, 
was put to death. His skin was then taken off. dyed a deep 
red and suspended in a temple to signify the disgrace of the 
Roman arms. The son and successor of Valerian, Gallionus, 
was a detestable creature intent upon selfish indulgences, 
who was killed by the soldiers and succeeded by Claudius 
II, 368 A. D. 

This period has been called that of the "Thirty Tyrants," 
from the number of usurpers that appeared in all parts of 
the empire. Gibbon enumerates nineteen of these, includ- 
ing Odenatus and Zenobia, in Syria; Macrinus. in Egypt: 
Piso and Valens, in Greece; Areolus, in Rhetia; Posthumius. 
Victorinus and Tetricus, in Gaul. A plague decimated the 
realm at this time and at times carried off as many as 5,000 
victims a day in the city of Rome. Claudius had some re- 
spect for his own character and possessed military genius. 
He destroyed an army of 300,000 Goths who had advanced 
into Macedonia, and also a fleet of 2,000 sail, but was fatally 
stricken with the plague and abdicated in favor of Aurelian. 
Already famous for his victory over the Franks, Aurelian 
reaped the fruits of the victories of Claudius, and by driving 
out the Vandals, Germans, and other barbarians who had 
penetrated into Italy, became the restorer of the empire. The 
walls he built to protect Rome still remain in part. He de- 



THE ROMAN EMPIRE 115 

feated Zenobia in two battles and destroyed Palmyra, re- 
covered Gaul, Spain and Britain from the usurper Tetricus, 
and, following the policy of Augustus, made the Danube the 
northern frontier. His successors, Tacitus, Probus and 
Carus, followed the course of Aurelian in this respect. Carus 
being killed, as it was said, by lightning, one of his generals, 
Diocletian, took away the authority from his effeminate and 
cruel sons, Carinus and Numerianus, and established an ab- 
solute imperialistic form of government, which extended to 
the dissolution of the empire. 

Though a military monarch, Diocletian created what was 
called a "Tetrarchy," or rule of four. He made Maximian, 
who controlled the West, including Italy and Africa, his as- 
sociate emperor, Diocletian, with his residence at Nicomedia 
in Asia Minor, retaining control of the East, including 
Thrace, Macedonia, Asia and Egypt. Then he appointed an 
assistant for himself, Galerius, who controlled Noricum, 
Panonia and Moesia, and an assistant for Maximian. Con- 
stantius, who controlled Spain, Gaul and Britain. 

The last of the persecutions of Christians is said to have 
begun (303 A. D.) under Diocletian and continued for ten 
years, when Constantine (313 A. D.) became sole ruler. The 
recognition of Christianity as the state religion, the calling 
of a council of the clergy at Nicaea to fix the points of faith 
(325), and the establishment of a new capital for the em- 
pire at Constantinople (328), were among the leading events 
of his reign. He also abolished the praetorian guards, giv- 
ing territorial governors only civil authority, and made the 
army as well as the civil rulers entirely subject to the central 
power. 

Constantine had begun to rule as successor to his father, 
Constantius Chlorus, over Spain, Gaul and Britain (306 A. 



116 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

D. ) . There were then six hostile rulers in the empire. Both 
Maximian and Maximin committed suicide; Galerius died of 
a frightful disease; Maxentius was defeated by Constantine 
and drowned in the Tiber, and Licinius, who also attacked 
Constantine near Adrianople, was captured and subsequently 
executed. 

Though Constantine had divided his dominions among his 
three sons, Constantius, Constans and Constantine, and two 
nephews, Julian and Callus, the people were dissatisfied and 
murdered all the remaining nephews. Constantine II made 
war on his brother Constans, and was killed by him at 
Aquilea (340 A. D.), Constans being killed in Spain (350 
A. D.) by Magnentius, an officer of Constans' army. Callus 
was put to death by Constantius (354 A. D.). In the year 
360, Constantius and Julian quarreled and the death of the 
former left Julian sole emperor. He endeavored to restore 
the pagan religion and gained the title of "the Apostate." 
He was a man of energy and repelled the Alemanni who 
crossed the Rhine, and made a vigorous war on the Per- 
sians, but his successor, Jovian, made a disadvantageous 
peace with them (363 A. D.). Valentinian was elected by 
the army emperor of the West, and he made his brother, 
Valeus, emperor in the East. During the reign of the latter, 
the Huns, emerging from the steppes of Asia, attacked the 
Goths and drove them into the Roman territory. They were 
given homes south of the Danube in Thrace and Moesia, but 
being maddened by the ill-treatment of the Roman officials, 
rose in revolt and defeated the Roman army at Adrianople 
(378 A. D.), where Valeus was killed. 

Theodosius succeeded Valeus as emperor of the East ( 379 
A. D.), and continued the policy of admitting the barbari- 
ans and protecting them. When Gothic soldiers were mobbed 



THE ROMAN EMPIRE 117 

in the city of Thessalonica, he caused 7,000 of the people to 
be gathered in the circus, where they were slaughtered in a 
body by the soldiers (390 A. D.). He made one notable 
military expedition to the West, after its ruler Valentinian 
II, who succeeded his brother Gratian, had been basely mur- 
dered by Arbogastes, general of his armies (392 A. D.). 
Theodosius forced a passage through the Alps, and defeated 
the army of Eugenius and Arbogastes at Aquileia, when the 
latter committed suicide. At the death of Theodosius, his 
son, Arcadius, became emperor of the East, and another son, 
Honorius, of the West. 

Stilicho, a barbarian general in the Roman service, was 
the guardian of the young Honorius, emperor of the West, 
and as long as Stilicho lived, Itialy was safe from invasion. 
Stilicho defeated the Goths under Alaric in the battle of 
Polentia (403 A. D.), and the Vandals, Burgundians, Suevi 
and Alani, under the leadership of Radagaisus in 406 A. D. 
But Honorius, it is said, became jealous of him, and he was 
put to death (408 A. D.). 

Alaric invaded the Italian peninsula and Rome was made 
to pay an enormous ransom. When Honorius refused to 
grant him lands, Alaric gave the city up to his soldiers, who 
sacked it (410 A. D.). Valentinian being but six years old 
when proclaimed emperor, the government was controlled 
by his mother, Placidia, sister of Honorius and daughter of 
Theodosius. She had two able generals, Aetius and Boni- 
face, the latter serving in Africa, and the former instru- 
mental in defeating Attila, at Chalons (451 A. D.), where 
it is said the battlefield was strewn with 180,000 corpses. 

Aetius, like Stilicho, was also murdered by his jealous 
prince, Valentinian III, who was himself assassinated in his 
palace. Shortly afterwards Genseric, chief of the Vandals, 
under the pretense of avenging the emperor, took possession 



118 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

of Rome and for fourteen days gave the city up to pillage 
(455 A. D.). Rome was now tottering, for seventeen years 
(455-472) Ricimer, a Goth, commanding the foreign troops, 
exercised absolute authority, elevating and deposing em- 
perors at will. Eight rulers perished or were deposed in 
twenty years. Odoacer, King of the Heruli, had little diffi- 
culty in overthrow^ing the youthful Augustulus, and the bar- 
barians took full possession of Italy (476 A. D.). 




'KKSI DENT I'mxCA K K 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE FRANCO-IBERIAN PENINSULA. 

As we have seen, France, Spain and Portugal, which are 
included in the Franco-Iberian peninsula, were under the 
control of Rome until the fall of the Western Empire in 
476. At that time Odoacer was entrusted by Zeno, em- 
peror at Constantinople, in whom the full control of the 
whole Roman Empire had been vested by the senate, with 
the government of the West. The Roman senate had voted 
that one emperor was enough, and so Odoacer, chief of a 
Teutonic tribe, the Heruli, who had previously captured 
and sacked the city, was named as Patrician at Rome. The 
old form of government, with senate, consuls, etc., was con- 
tinued, but from this time on, as the historian Freeman ex- 
presses it, "old Rome itself passed into the power of the 
barbarians." 

The Iberians were probably an indigenous people whom 
the Celts in their migrations found in possession of this 
western territory. They were related to the Finns of the 
north. In France, under the name of Aquitani, they were 
crowded to the south of the Garonne, and, as Basques in 
Spain, they were forced to the northwest, the mixture of 
races being called Celtiberians. 

Alaric, king of the West-Goths, as we have seen, though 
kept in check for a considerable time by the Roman general, 



130 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Stilicho, finally in 410, captured and sacked the city of Rome 
and, although he died before actually in control of a govern- 
ment in Spain, he is rated as its first sovereign (406). His 
successor, Athauf, went nominally as a Roman official to re- 
store the Spanish province to the empire, but really made it 
an independent government modeled after that of Rome 
(411). 

General history makes Clovis, chief of the Saliau Franks 
of Tournai, the first king of France in 481 A. D. By his 
victory at Soissons in 485 he defeated the last remnant of 
the Roman army and extended his dominions south as far 
as the Loire. But kings were not then what they subse- 
quently became, nor was France the France of Francis I, 
or even of Charlemagne. 

Clovis drove the Alemanni. as the Germans are still called 
in the French language, out of France, and laid the founda- 
tion of what afterwards became the monarchy. Next he 
conquered the Burgundians and reduced them to vassalage. 
Then he beat the Visigoths and drove them into Spain and 
conquered the Acquitainians. He became a Christian and 
united the Frankish peoples by assassinating all the "kings" 
of these tribes. For these deeds of blood, so far from being 
blamed, he was regarded as a blessed instrument in the hands 
of Providence who merited the reward of empire in that he 
was a converted pagan and good Christian. 

Long and bloody wars marked the reigns of his immediate 
successors, who were his four sons, each of whom became a 
separate and independent king. They annihilated the Bur- 
gundian kingdom and divided it among themselves. They 
did the same with Provence. They subjugated to their power 
the whole of Gaul except a corner in the southeast still held 
by the Visigoths. They invaded Italy and were driven back 
by the Lombards, They invaded Spain and met the same 



FRANCO-IBERIAN PENINSULA 121 

fate. They were more successful in Germany, one of these 
kings, Theoderic, conquering the Thuringians and appro- 
priating the territory which now comprises parts of Prussia, 
Saxony and the Saxon duchies. 

To these wars of conquest succeeded the wars between 
the brother kings, more bloody than those for foreign do- 
minion. On the death of Clotaire, the last surviving son of 
Clovis, the kingdom was again divided between four sons, 
with their respective capitals at Paris, Orleans, Rheims and 
Soissons. There were naturally mutual jealousies, disputes 
and wars over boundaries, which resulted in the terrible civil 
wars lasting from 561 to 613, and which were fanned into 
fury by the rivalries and the hatreds of Fredegunde and 
Brunehilda, two women, far famed in early French history, 
whose domestic treachery and secret assassinations added to 
the horrors of war. 

The most powerful of the Merovingians was Dagobert, 
who was sole king from 628 to 638. Under him the Basques 
or Vascones. south of the Garonne, were conquered, the 
dukes of the Bretons submitted, the greater part of the Fris- 
ians and Saxons paid tribute and the Thuringians, Alemanni 
and Bavarians received his commands as king. The Prank- 
ish empire extended from the Weser to the Pyrenees and 
from the Western Ocean to the Bohemian frontiers. 

When Dagobert died his two sons, Sigobert II and Clovis 
II, were still children, and the monarchial authority declined 
rapidly, while the power of the mayors of the palace in- 
creased, the more so as children were placed upon the throne 
in many cases. 

In 680 an Austrasian army, under Duke Martin, set out 
to attack Ebroin, Mayor of Theoderic III, then King of 
Neustria and Burgundy. This army was defeated and 
Martin, drawn into a conference by Ebroin, was killed.' But 



123 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Ebroin, the last defender of Merovingian royalty, was as- 
sassinated (687) by Duke Pippin of Austrasia, which act 
practically ended the Merovingian dynasty. 

The "Mayor of the Palace," as we have seen, was the chief 
executive officer of the king and commanded the main body 
of the army, so that the mayor after a time came to possess 
more power than the king himself. 

During the confusion and wars which accompanied the 
breakup of the decaying Merovingian dynasty, one of these 
mayors. Pippin of Heristal, an able prince and ruler, usurped 
the royal authority, in all but the name, and founded what 
became known as the Carlovingian dynasty. An illegitimate 
son of Pippin, Charles Martel, succeeded him, and opened up 
a remarkable period. 

Pippin's oldest son had died before him, and the second 
son was assassinated. Accordingly, Pippin had made an 
infant grandson mayor of Neustria and Austrasia, with the 
child's grandmother, Plectrudis, as guardian. Refusing to 
be governed by a woman and child, the Neustrians chose a 
mayor of their own, one Raginfred, who proceeded to invade 
Austrasia from the west, while the Saxons and Frisians at- 
tacked it from the east. The Austrasians needed an able 
commander, and so they took this illegitimate son of Pippin, 
Charles Martel, out of prison where Plectrudis had placed 
him, and made him king. 

He was thirty years old and a rough barbarian soldier, 
knowing little of the management of armies. At first un- 
successful, he withdrew his forces into the interior of the 
Ardennes forest, and, watching his opportunity, he suddenly 
emerged, surprised and routed the Neustrian army. He de- 
feated them at Cambroi the next year (717), and, the Aqui- 
tanians coming to their assistance, he routed their combined 
forces two years later at Soissons and reduced them to sub- 



FRANCO-IBERIAN PKNINSULA 123 

jection as he subsequently did to the Alemanni, the Bavarians 
and Thuringians. But his greatest victory was yet to follow. 
The Arabs, who had conquered Spain, crossed the Pyrenees 
and poured out over the southern plains of France. Charles 
met and defeated them in 732 at Tours, putting 300,000 
Saracens to the sword, and fighting one of the decisive bat- 
tles of the world, in that it saved Christian Europe from 
overthrow by the religion of the prophet. Some of Martel's 
fiercest wars and conquests were in Germany, whither he 
sent his Christian missionaries to prepare the way for his 
military expeditions. He developed into a wise and far- 
seeing prince, though much of his life as a king was passed 
in war. From 733 to 739 he was in arms against the Bur- 
gundians, who had refused to submit to the weak successors 
of Dagobert. Charles conquered them, as well as the valley 
of the Rhone, and subjected Septimania, where the remnant 
of the Arab army had fled from Tours. That same year, 
739, he completed the subjugation of Provence. Although 
he divided the lands which he took from the church to re- 
ward his soldiers, he was engaged in preparing to cross the 
Alps to defend the Pope, who had solicited his aid as against 
the Lombards, when he died. 

Charles supported and protected the English monk, Boni- 
face, the apostle to the Germans, and by means of Boniface's 
labors Germany was brought into union with Rome, the re- 
sult of which was the founding of the Holy Roman Empire, 
which endured up to the time of Luther. 

One of the elder sons of Charles Martel, Pippins the Short, 
succeeded in 752. He was a son and protector of the church 
and knew how to bargain with it for his own advantage. 
Upon the promise of help from Pippin against the Lombards, 
Pope Zacharias approved of his usurpation of the royal 
name and authority and Pippin was anointed king by Boni- 



124 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

face at Soissons in 753, his coronation being consecrated by 
Pope Suphen II in St. Denis in 754. In fulfillment of his 
agreement with Pope Zacharias while he lived, Pippin led his 
armies over the Alps and warred with the Lombards, whom 
he conquered and forced to cede to him the exarcharte of 
Ravenna and the Pentapolis, which territory he gave to the 
Pope. This famous donation created the temporal power of 
the Pope which lasted more than a thousand years, when it 
disappeared in the founding of the Kingdom of Italy in 
1870. Pippin carried on wars against the Saxons, later con- 
tinued for so long and with such merciless severity by his 
successor. 

Next came Charlemagne, the greatest figure in French his- 
tory antecedent to Napoleon. It may be mentioned at the 
outset that the Carolingian dynasty, like all other dynasties 
of the early feudalism, was neither hereditary nor elective, 
but was determined by the will of the king, confirmed by the 
great feudatories. 

The first wars of Charlemagne were in Italy, and he em- 
barked for them on the Pope's appeal for help against Didier, 
the king of the Lombards. He crossed the Alps, took Ve- 
rona and Pavia after long sieges, assumed the iron crown of 
the Lombard kings, and made a triumphal entry into Rome 
in 774. Upon a revolt of the Lombards two years later, 
Charlemagne returned and conquered the whole of Italy. 
This was in Italy and was but an episode. His greatest war 
and one which continued with varying fortunes for thirty 
years (from 772 to 804) was with the Saxons of northern 
Germany, bordering on the North Sea and the Baltic. 

The vast empire of Charlemagne was surrounded by hos- 
tile and non-Christian nations, the Danes in Scandinavia, the 
Slavs of the Baltic, the Avars of Hungary, and the Arabs in 
Spain. The whole reign of this great prince was spent in 



FRANCO-IBERIAN PENINSULA 125 

incessant wars. The most celebrated of these in song and 
story, perhaps, are his wars in Spain (from 778 to 812). A 
Saracen emir or prince, an enemy of the caliph of Cordova, 
offered to put Charlemagne in possession of the cities which 
the caliph held south of the Pyrenees. Accordingly, Charle- 
magne led his army through Gascony, compelling Duke Lupus 
to take an oath of allegiance and cross the Pyrenees. On his 
return, after reducing Pampeluna and Saragossa, his army 
was ambushed by the Basques in the valley of Roncesvallis 
and among those killed was the Count Rowland, commander 
of the Marchess of Brittany. Six other successful expedi- 
tions beyond the Pyrenees were made by the Franks, con- 
ducted chiefly by the sons of Charlemagne, and the empire 
was extended nearly to the Ebro. Not under the first Na- 
poleon was the French empire so widely extended in every 
direction, and the Germans, just creeping into civilization, 
were taught history, grammar, writing and arithmetic by the 
English Alcuin, Charlemagne's chancellor. In the year 800, 
the western Roman empire was revived and Charlemagne 
crowned as emperor by the Pope, but with this difference : it 
was no longer the "Roman Empire," but the "Holy Roman 
Empire," to signify that the ultimate dominion was vested 
m the church. This was an event of utmost importance, and 
shaped the history of the middle ages. 

Imperialism and centralization, represented by Charle- 
magne, were antagonistic to feudalism and the interests of 
the great feudatories, and, finally, the latter prevailed. The 
vast empire, held in unity by the wisdom and power of the 
great Charlemagne, went to pieces at his death. 

Twenty-nine years after his death, in 814, the empire had 
been divided into three kingdoms ; forty years later, one of 
these kingdoms had split into seven, and a century after 
Charlemagne's death, France was a batch of practically in- 



120 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

dependent states, just as Germany was at the peace of West- 
phalia in 1648, and as Germany continued to be for two cen- 
turies and a half after that date. 

Charlemagne in his lifetime made his three sons sover- 
eigns — Pippin, king of the Italians ; Charles, of the Germans, 
and Louis the Pious, of the Aquitanians. The former two 
dying before their father, this division was annulled, and 
Charlemagne made Bernard, son of Pippin, King of Italy, 
while Louis the Pious, as emperor, retained the rest of the 
dominion. Rebellion against him by his three sons and do- 
mestic wars followed, which were continued after the death 
of Louis until finally settled by the battle of Fontanatum 
(841) and a partition of the empire between the three sons 
in the famous treaty of Verdun, 843. Some historians have 
gone so far as to say that all subsequent treaties on the con- 
tinent have been mere modifications of this early compact. 
This treaty first created the distinction between France and 
Germany, with the middle Kingdom of Lorraine between 
them, the latter becoming picking grounds for both, and of 
which only the name of the province now remains. Wars, 
and nothing but wars, followed this division between the 
kings and rebellious and rival feudatories. Charles the Bald. 
King of France from 843 to 877, spent his life, sword in 
hand, fighting the Northmen, who, under Rollo, took posses- 
sion of Northern France and later of England. 

These much-dreaded pirates, in their two-sailed vessels, 
each fleet under the command of a inking, despite the storms 
which often shattered their craft, laughed at the winds and 
waves, and it was said that in the clash of battle, at the sight 
of blood, they were seized with a "berserker" (bare-shirted ) 
madness which doubled their strength and rendered them im- 
mune to blows, as though led on by Thor, the god of battles. 

Under the famous pirates. Hasting and Rollo, these Norse- 



FRANCO-IBERIAN PENINSULA 127 

men besieged Paris for a year (885 to 886), and after the 
arrival of Charles the Fat, with his army of reinforcements, 
who ruled Charlemagne's whole domains, the Parisians were 
infused with the purpose of destroying these robbers. But 
the cowardly emperor had made a disgraceful treaty per- 
mitting the Norse to go and ravage the province of Bur- 
gundy. The next year Charles was deposed, and the ruins 
of his empire served to form seven kingdoms : France, Cis- 
jurane Burgundy, Transjurane Burgundy, Navarre, Lor- 
raine, Italy and Germany. 

The Capetian dynasty, beginning with Hugh Capet, in 
987, was marked by the weakening of the royal power and 
the increase of power in the great feudatories, a process 
which served as the cause of the development of many dif- 
ferent wars at different places, some, indeed, at the same 
time, to gratify the greed, ambition or other passion of the 
rival feudal barons. These barons built their castles in 
strong places and the peasants flocked to their precincts for 
])rotection ; this they were given in consideration of labor in 
time of peace and service in the army in time of war. 

From this period of the feudal regime, during the last half 
of the tenth century, the first general war occurred between 
France and Germany. 

Louis III of Germany invaded France in 858, but was 
compelled to retire; Lorraine was annexed to France in 868 ; 
Charles the Fat. who usurped the throne of France in 884, 
was deposed in 887. After Charles, Count Eudes, who had 
defended Paris against the Northmen, was selected king. 
Charles the Simple having been elected king by the partisans 
of the Carlovingian dynasty, Eudes frightened him out of 
Rheims, and he fled to Arnulf, Emperor of Germany, for 
refuge, which would have occasioned a war had the counts 
and bishops of Lotharingia supported the emperor, and had 



128 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

not Eudes died in 898, when Charles the Simple succeeded 
him without opposition. Then followed the establishment 
of the Norse in Normandy, ceded to them by Charles, and 
the death of the latter in prison in spite of Germany's efforts 
to save him in 929. 

This was succeeded by the election of his son, Louis IV 
(d'outre-Mer), recalled from England at the age of fifteen, 
his imprisonment for a year, the purchase of his release by 
the cession of his last city, Laon, to Hugh, Duke of France, 
for his support, and his accidental death while hunting in 
954. The reigns of Lothair and his son, Louis V, which 
ended in 987 by his accidental fall from a horse, are notable, 
aside from the wars of the vassals for territory, on account 
of the extreme poverty to which these last descendants of 
Charlemagne were reduced. 

The financial and political weakness of the last of the Car- 
lovingians was the chief reason for which Hugh Capet, hav- 
ing at his disposal the revenues of three of the richest abbeys 
of France, decided to assume the title of king. He and his 
three lineal successors were closely allied with the church, 
and the military events of the time include the persecution of 
the Jews (1010), the conquest of Burgundy (1016), the first 
burning of heretics (1022), the invasion of Brittany by 
Robert the Devil (1033), the battle of Val des Dunes, near 
Caen, fought by William the Bastard against his vassals 
(1046), the defeat and death of Eudes H, Count of Blois, 
in the Barrois (1037), the bloody victory of the Normans 
over the French of the Ilse-de-France (1054), the frightful 
famine of the eleventh century, the conquest of Portugal by 
Henry of Burgimdy (1095), the first Crusade undertaken 
almost alone by the French (1096), the quarrel of the three 
Popes and the Concordat of Worms (1122), and the contest 
for the divine right of title between Edward HI of England 



FRANCO-IBERIAN PENINSU1.A 129 

and Philip VI of Valois, inaugurating the "Hundred Years' 
War" between France and England, lasting from 1338 to 
1453. 

The great problem of the middle ages was whether there 
should be one universal empire over all the nations of Eu- 
rope, and, if so, whether the Pope or the Emperor should 
head it. In this was involved the secondary problem whether 
monarchy or feudalism should prevail. We see here the 
foundation head of the long and bitter wars and the intricate 
complications which devastated Europe and of which France 
had her full share. 

After the ruin of the house of Burgundy by the French 
monarchy, the French king, in his greediness, claimed every- 
thing. In despair, Mary, the heiress of Burgundy, threw 
herself into the arms of Maximilian of Austria, and the Low 
Countries fell under the dominion of the Hapsburgs. Here 
was another fruitful source of war, not only in France, but 
also in Spain. 

With the fall of Charles the Bold of Burgundy, and the 
success of the policies and intrigues of the "Universal 
Spider," Louis XI, the French monarchy proper was con- 
stituted and the force of feudalism was exhausted. From 
this time forward, wars in France began to take national 
aims and interest into consideration, and wars for mere pri- 
vate and personal interests abated in the same proportion. 

The wars of the French in Italy began in the last decade 
of the fifteenth century, when Ferdinand II of Aragon 
wrested the kingdom of Naples from France, and continued 
until the defeat of Francis I at Pavia and the treaty of Mad- 
rid in 1526. It was with Francis I that the king became an 
absolute monarch in France and so continued until the 
French Revolution of 1789. 

Contemporary with these events was the beginning of the 



130 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Reformation in Germany, which was the source of the 
Thirty Years' War inaugurated by the House of Austria, a 
struggle both political and religious, beginning in Bohemia 
in 1618, and involving in its purpose the subjugation of Eu- 
rope by the ruin of German Protestantism, and of the relig- 
ious wars in the Low Countries, in all of which France took 
part. But what concerned France more nearly were the re- 
ligious wars at home, which raged until the edict of Nantes 
and broke out with new fury after that edict was revoked. 
The best remembered event of these wars is the "Massacre 
of St. Bartholomew." These wars were most bloody and 
vindictive, and treachery and private assassinations played 
important parts. 

The divine right of kings was a doctrine which Bossuet 
founded upon doctrine drawn from the Holy Scriptures, a 
doctrine which all the world believed and Louis XIV em- 
bodied in his famous declaration, "I am the State." 

The long and costly wars of Louis XIV, upheld and sup- 
ported by this doctrine and faith, imposed a debt on France 
which could not be met by the ordinary means of raising 
revenues. The States-General were called to provide the 
necessary means, and in 1789 the French Assembly adopted 
the declaration of the "Rights of Man," and on June 20, 
1790, abolished hereditary nobility and titles of honor. The 
changes and horrors of the revolution, which began with the 
storming of the Bastile, July 14, 1789, followed rapidly. 
Louis XVI had to pay the penalty of the misgovernment of 
the many sovereigns who had reigned before him, more espe- 
cially of his grandfather, Louis XV, and his predecessor, 
Louis XIV, who was styled Dieu Donne (God-given), but 
from the ills he inflicted upon the French people in his ef- 
forts to conquer all Europe, seems to have been quite the re- 



FRANCO-IBERIAN PENINSULA 131 

verse. With the Reign of Terror, one party after another 
arose to power and put its enemies to death. Yet amidst 
these commotions it prepared a uniform code for all France, 
decreed a system of national instruction, and by the sale of 
the "national property'' and consolidation of the public debt, 
opened up unproductive domains and established public con- 
fidence in the credit of the state. The king of Prussia and 
the Emperor Leopold, by the famous declaration of Pilnitz. 
signed August 27, 1791, had expressed their intention of re- 
establishing Louis XVI in his rights, and thus, through a 
coalition of kings against France, began a frightful war of 
twenty-three years' duration. 

Bloody battles ensued, including that of Menin, Belgium, 
June 20, 1792, in which the Austrians were defeated; the 
battle of Valmy, France, September 20, in which Keller- 
man, with 96,000 undisciplined troops, repulsed 160,000 
Germans; Custine's capture of Speyer, Worms and Mainz 
(all recaptured by the allies in August, '93) ; Montes- 
quieu's conquest of Savoy, and Auselme's capture of Nice; 
and Dumouriez's victory at Jemmappes, Belgium, Novem- 
ber 6, over the Austrians. 

Meanwhile, the massacre of the Swiss guards and the 
storming of the Tuileries, with the imprisonment of the 
royal family, occurred in Paris, August 10 ; the massacre in 
the Abbaye prison, September 3 ; and of the Royalist pris- 
oners, September 5. 

Later that year the French Republic was established; 
Savoy, Nice, and Belgium, annexed to France ; Louis XVL 
beheaded; and war declared by France against England, 
Spain, and Holland (Feb. 1, 1793). 

With Robespierre practically dictator, in March, '93, the 
"Reign of Terror" was soon under way. The assassination 



132 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

of Marat by Charlotte Corday followed, and the execution 
of the Queen, of the Duke of Orleans, and of Madame Ro- 
land as well. The execution of Robespierre, St. Just, and 
seventy of their colleagues in July following, terminated the 
"Terror." 

Battles occurred meanwhile at Lincelles, Ouesnay, Dun- 
kirk, and Watignies, France, favorable to the enemies of 
France. Houchard gained a victory over the English 
(Sept. 8) at Hondschoote, and defeated the Dutch five days 
later ; but his army was seized with a panic and fled in dis- 
order to Lille, which event led to the execution of both 
Houchard and Custine. Kleber practically settled the re- 
bellion in La Vendee by routing the peasant army at Chollet 
(Oct. 17). The campaigns of '94 and '95 passed, and be- 
fore the end of the last, Barras, appointed by the convention, 
selected a young lieutenant, Napoleon Bonaparte, who had 
distinguished himself at Toulon, to defend the Tuileries 
against an attack of the Royalists. 

This marked the beginning of the greatest military career 
known to the world — a career unlike that of Alexander, 
Caesar, and other great conquerors, in the fact that it was 
a protest against the rule of royalty by divine right, in favor 
of republican-democracy ; and this, although the personality 
concerned, by reason of its ability and the conditions en- 
countered, was almost absolute in its authority. 

In October, 1795, the mission of the Convention was 
ended. With five honest directors, only one of whom was 
competent, and with an empty treasury, the Republic of 
France began its work. It had no commerce or industries, 
no local government was in operation, and food was scarce. 
But it had some experienced soldiers and generals. The army 
of the Rhine was commanded by Moreau ; that of the Sambre 
and Meuse, by Jourdan ; Hoche commanded in the West, and 




NAPOLKON Ho.N.U'.M 



FRANCO-IBERIAN PENINSULA 133 

Napoleon had just received command of the army of the 
Interior, which was soon exchanged for that of the army 
of Italy. 

He was coldly received by generals Massena, Augereau, 
and the others when he reached the army of the Alps; but 
his plans, which Carnot had authorized, won them over. 
The armies of Jourdan and Moreau of about 75,000 each, 
separated by mountains, were to converge and meet on the 
road to Vienna, while Napoleon would advance toward the 
same point from Italy. 

He had 38,000 men, when he turned the Col de Monte- 
notte, with which to take the offensive against the Austrian 
general Beaulieu, with 60,000 Sardinian and Austrian troops. 
He pierced their center, crushed the Sardinian army, made 
terms which gave France Savoy, Nice, and Tenda, and 
then, crossing the Po behind the Austrians at Piacenza, car- 
ried the bridge at Lodi, repulsed the Austrians, and levied 
war contributions on the Dukes of Parma and Modena and 
on the Pope at Rome. By February 2, 1797, the French, 
55,000 strong, had fought twelve pitched battles, besides 
some sixty skirmishes, and achieved victories over 200,000 
Austrians, more than 20,000 being killed and wounded and 
80,000 taken prisoners. 

Passing the brilliant but in some respects unfortunate 
campaigns of Napoleon in Egj^pt (1798-99), it may be said 
that as the military power of France grew stronger the po- 
litical seemed to weaken. Disorder was prevalent every- 
where in civil life and the Directory itself came to be re- 
garded as dishonest. 

The government had need of a strong hand. In the 
words of Sieyes : "To save France a head and a sword are 
needed"; and it was at this juncture that Bonaparte landed 



134 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

at Frejus from his Egyptian campaigns. Elected First Con- 
sul, he found that the royalty of Europe did not desire to 
recognize France as a Republic, but desired the restoration 
of the Bourbon line of princes which the nation regarded as 
having betrayed its real interests. A letter to this effect 
came to Count Talleyrand, Napoleon's Minister for Foreign 
Affairs, from Lord Grenville, English Minister, and its pub- 
lication united Frenchmen of all parties as supporters of 
Napoleon. And if the kings of Europe would not con- 
sider this young Corsican and his government seriously, 
what better course could he pursue than to teach them that 
one of humble origin might be quite able to surpass them all 
in adminstrative ability as well as war! 

Napoleon evinced his sentiment toward royalty by in- 
stalling himself in the grand palace of the Tuileries and 
crushing a royalist insurrection. He freed the country of 
robbers and appeased revolutionary disturbances. Trade 
revived and signs of prosperity began to appear. But the 
dignified and able letters which he had written to the Euro- 
pean sovereigns, making overtures for peace, were laughed 
at and rejected. 

War was unavoidable, and Napoleon arranged his plans 
to make it glorious and decisive for the victors. Giving Mo- 
reau command of the armies of the Rhine and Switzerland, 
and Massena the army of Italy, he took the field himself 
and guided an army of 40,000 men over the St. Bernard 
Pass into Italy, cutting Melas off from Austria. Melas, 
forced to give battle, made his first attack near Marengo — 
and won, at first. His second attack was so successful that 
he sent word of his victory to the cabinets of Europe. But 
Napoleon was hard to convince, and Desaix, who came up 
with 6,000 fresh troops, was ordered to charge the front 



FRANCO-IBERIAN PENINSULA 135 

of the Austrian column, while the remainder of the French 
fell upon the flanks of the enemy. Desaix was killed, but 
the Austrians were thrown into confusion which turned into 
a rout, and Marengo was won (June 14, 1800). Then the 
Archduke John was defeated (Dec. 8, 1800) by Moreau 
at Hohenlinden, on the Isar, with a loss of 20,000 men and 
eighty-seven pieces of cannon. These, with many minor 
victories, led to the Peace of Luneville (Feb., 1800). 

But, with this feeling among the crowned heads of Eu- 
rope, there would have been no rest for Bonaparte had he 
been possessed of less ambition. There followed renewed 
hostilities with England; the loss of Egypt; the Peace of 
Amiens (March, 1802); his election as First Consul for 
life; rupture of the Amiens' compact; then Napoleon King 
of Italy and Emperor of France; the defeat of the fleet by 
Nelson; the wonderful victories of Napoleon at Austerlitz 
(Dec. 2, 1805), Jena and Anerstadt (Oct., 1806), Eylau 
and Friedland (1807); and the Peace of Tilsit (July 8, 
1807). 

The first serious reverse sustained by Napoleon was in 
Spain, when the French troops were repulsed at Saragossa 
and Valencia, and Dupont was surrounded and forced to 
capitulate (July 20, 1808). Junot was defeated later by 
Wellesley and by September the Allies possessed all Spain. 
Yet Napoleon crossed the mountains, broke the enemy's 
center, and entered Madrid, where he* suppressed the In- 
quisition, closed two-thirds of the convents, and put an end 
to feudal rights and internal custom-houses. Saint Cyr 
was meanwhile carrying on a successful campaign on his 
left wing in Catalonia and Soult, driving 30,000 English 
before him on the right wing, finally compelling them to 
take refuge on ship-board at Coruna. 



136 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

The Archduke Charles of Austria, in April, 1809, with 
175,000 men attempted to gain possession of Bavaria, gar- 
risoned by scattering French forces, thinking it a good time 
to avenge Austria's disasters while Napoleon was occupied 
in the Iberian peninsula. Warned two days in advance, 
Napoleon, with the forces of his two marshals, Massena and 
Davout, cut the Grand Duke's army in two at Abensberg 
(April 20), captured Landshut the next day, and on the 
22d, turned their flank at Eckmiihl, driving them back upon 
the Danube and capturing nearly their entire force. In 
five days he had taken 60,000 men, 100 cannon, cut the Aus- 
trians in two, forced one-half into Bohemia and the other 
on the Inn, and opened a clear way to Vienna. The bloody 
battle of Aspern, or Essling (May 21, 22, 1809), followed 
and the victory of Wagram (July 6) cost Austria, in the 
treaty which followed, signed at Vienna (Oct. 14), a ter- 
ritory with 3,400,000 inhabitants — mostly in Illyria. 

For five years longer fortune was in the ascendancy with 
this remarkable man, who not only mastered France but 
came near to mastering all Europe, but who was overthrown 
June 13, 1815, at Waterloo. However, he settled the ques- 
tion of the "divine right of kings" for all time to come, in 
the negative. 

Since then France has been engaged in war in North 
Africa, took part in the Crimean war and in the struggle 
of Italy against Austria. The fatal mistake of France from 
a military point of view, perhaps the most fatal in her 
whole history, was in allowing Prussia to overpower Aus- 
tria in 1866, to annex independent German States and form 
the North German Confederation, with the king of Prussia 
ar the head and Prussia dominating. This was not foreseen 
then, but it is easily perceived now. 



SPAIN 137 

SPAIN. 

If Spain does not present a history of such continuous 
and imposing wars as France in the first thousand years of 
her history, she amply makes up for it during the period of 
her supremacy from the time of the union of Aragon and 
Castile and the expulsion of the Moors in 1493, down to 
the fall of the Spanish power. 

Spain, as we have seen, was a Roman province before 
Caesar conquered the whole of Gaul. In the break up of 
the Roman empire in the beginning of the fifth century, 
A. D. 409, hordes of Teuton barbarians. Alans, Vandals, 
and the Suevi crossed the Pyrenees and poured into the 
peninsula. About 414, one of the Teutonic tribes, the 
Visigoths, invaded the country and established the mon- 
archy of Goths at Catalonia, under King Athaulf. The 
Gothic Kingdom lasted until 770 when Roderic, the last 
of the kings, was killed in battle with the Saracens at 
Jerez, allowing the invaders possession of nearly the whole 
of Spain. The remnants of the Goths took refuge in the 
mountains of Asturias, Burgas, and Biscay, where they 
maintained their independence and remained quiet. The 
history of the revolutions and civil wars of the invaders 
among themselves, which reached its climax in the rivalry 
between the Ommiads and the Abbassides, need not be en- 
tered into in detail. 

The Gothic Kingdom of Asturias was founded by Pelayo 
in the eighth century, with the help of the remnant driven to 
the mountains, and began under his successors to extend 
itself southward by slow degrees, keeping in the meantime 
all acquisitions, and to reconquer territory from the Arabs. 
In the ninth century the communes of Leon and Navarre 
came into existence as states. Leon was long vexed with 



138 WAR OR A UNITED WORIvD 

civil wars between the scions of the royal line, and both 
would have fallen, or rather never have arisen, but for the 
wars among the invaders themselves. Castile branched out 
from Leon and became an independent state, and was erected 
into a kingdom in 1033. In their progress Southward the 
Goths, whom we may now call the Spaniards, conquered the 
territory of Aragon from their enemies, the Moors — now 
so-called; and, by the incorporation in it of Catalonia, the 
kingdom of Aragon was founded in 1035. The kingdom 
of Portugal was founded last — the Count of Lorraine be- 
coming king — and is one of the original states which still 
remains. 

The Ommiads ruled in Spain for about 275 years. Un- 
der Abd-er-Rahman III, who became caliph in 929, Cor- 
dova, his capital, was the most splendid city in Europe ex- 
cept Constantinople. It was very far in advance of all the 
rest of Europe in science, art, literature, agriculture, indus- 
try and commerce. Its schools excelled beyond comparison 
those of Christian Europe, and Greek philosophy was studied 
and taught there before it was known in Christendom. The 
Moorish fleets controlled the Mediterranean and carried on 
an extensive trade along all its borders. 

With the fall of the Ommiad dynasty in 1031, the Moor- 
ish dominion disintegrated into a number of independent 
states — Cordova, Seville, Toledo, Lisbon, Saragossa, Valen- 
cia, Torlosa, Munia, Badajoz and others of lesser note. 
Aragon and Castile, taking advantage of this division, sub- 
dued and incorporated some of these States and subjected 
others to tribute, but not without long and fierce conflicts. 
The Spaniards, pushing their conquest over the Moors, 
called in for aid the Almoravides from Morocco, who, after 
defeating the Christians and reconquering much lost ter- 
ritory, after severe fighting, turned their arms against the 



SPAIN 139 

Moors and conquered them. The power of Yusuf's Al- 
moravides or "Al-Morabith" (men devoted to God) — -a. 
mixture of monks, warriors, and thieves — was broken by 
the Almohades, another set from Morocco, who in turn 
became the rulers. In a decisive battle in the plains of Las 
Navas de Tolosa, 1312, the kings of Castile, Navarre, and 
Aragon by their united strength destroyed the Almohade 
power in Spain. For seventy years they had sway over 
Almoravides and Arabs from the East, until all Europe 
became alarmed and united against them. All that re- 
mained of it capitulated to Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. 
This ended the Moorish wars in Spain and marks the be- 
ginning of a new era. The great captain, Gonsalvo, tri- 
umphed over France in Italy. In 1512 Ferdinand m.ade 
himself master of Navarre, except of that part lying north 
of the Pyrenees, and effected the unification of Spain under 
a single monarchy. In 1516, Charles I, grandson of Fer- 
dinand and Isabella, became king of Spain, and in 1519 
became Holy Roman emperor as Charles V. Descended 
from Maximilian of Austria and Mary of Burgundy, he 
was the first of the Hapsburgs to ascend the throne of 
Spain. His reign saw a series of wars with the French, 
the Turks and the Protestant states of Germany. To him 
succeeded Philip 11, famed for his wars, his cruel persecu- 
tions in the Netherlands, and his great Armada which fought 
against and was defeated by England (1588). 

During the reign of Charles V, Spain was the first mili- 
tary power in Europe, and its vast American possessions 
made it by far the richest in wealth and the widest in do- 
minions. Under the bigoted Catholic Philip II, Spain be- 
gan its career of decline and has descended lower and lower 
until it has lost all its foreign possessions and sunk to the 
level of the lowest of the second-class states. But it is now 



140 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

throwing off the fatal incumbus which paralyzed it and 
there is good hope of the resurrection of a new Spain. In 
the Seven Years' War, Spain joined with France. As a 
result of this war, Spain ceded Florida to Great Britain and 
Spain acquired Louisiana from France. In 1779 Spain be- 
came the ally of France in the war against England ; in 1783 
she recovered Florida, and in 1819 ceded it to the United 
States. 

In the Napoleonic wars the unconquerable endurance 
of the Spanish and English soldiery first proved that Na- 
poleon was not invincible. Meanwhile, Spain's American 
colonies had revolted and, after fierce wars of sixteen years, 
in 1826 Spain had lost all her colonies on the mainland, Cuba 
being the last to be surrendered ; now Spain had not a foot- 
hold on the American continent of which at one time she 
possessed the greater part. 

After the downfall of Napoleon, the bloody tyrant, Fer- 
dinand III, came to the throne and abrogated the liberal 
constitution of 1812. He restored the religious orders to 
their former predominance, abolished the Cortes and re- 
established the Inquisition. Besides other reactionary meas- 
ures, he put to death under arbitrary forms of law over 
7,000 Spanish patriots. 

In 1820, a liberal revolution headed by Raphael del Riego 
restored the Cortes and other institutions which had been 
destroyed by Ferdinand in 1814. In 1823, the Holy Al- 
liance took note of the revolution and France was commis- 
sioned to suppress it and restore Absolutism and the rule of 
the church. A French army of 100,000 men invaded Spain, 
and the Spanish forces were not able to resist them success- 
fully. The French entered Madrid, drove out the liberal 
government and restored Ferdinand, who had been declared 
of unsound mind by the Cortes. The prime minister, Ber- 



SPAIN 141 

nandes, finally adopted a somewhat more liberal policy, thus 
offending the absolutists and the clericals who rallied around 
Don Carlos, the brother of Ferdinand and the representative 
of extreme absolutism and the church party. Meanwhile, 
in 1831, Ferdinand, having no male heir, decreed the re- 
vival of the old law admitting female succession, and de- 
clared his daughter, Isabella, his successor. The king died 
in 1833 and Queen Maria Christina, became regent for her 
daughter, Isabella II. Civil war broke out between the Car- 
lists and the Christinas (so called from the Queen regent, 
Christina). The Carlists were at first successful, but were 
finally defeated and Don Carlos went into exile, leaving his 
pretensions to his son. 

After the death of King Ferdinand VII Spain was a prey 
to internal dissension, strife, confusion, and war; owing to 
the conflict between the liberal and the reactionary or abso- 
lutist and church parties. In 1843 Isabella became of age 
and assumed the crown. But this did not end the turmoil. 
In 1851 a concordat was made with the Pope by which all 
religions other than the Roman Catholic were suppressed. 
In 1852 the Queen's advisors attempted to put a measure 
of absolutism into the constitution which had been adopted. 
These reactionary moves and measures led to a new out- 
break in 1854. There were republican and Carlist risings 
and war over the whole peninsula, followed by a war with 
Morocco in 1859-60. 

Finally, in 1869, a liberal monarchical constitution was 
put through by a combination of republicans under Castelar 
and the progressivists under Prim. Several foreign princes 
were invited to take the crown, and Prussia was pushing 
Leopold, the Hohenzollern. whose candidacy gave rise to 
the Franco-Prussian war. The Duke of Aosta, Amadeus, 
son of King Victor Emmanuel, was finally chosen as king in 



142 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

December, 1870, but abdicated in February, 1873. The end 
of his reign was distracted by a great rising, headed by the 
young Don Carlos. Upon the abdication of King Amadeus, 
a repubhc was estabHshed with Figueras as First President 
of the Ministry and Castelar Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
But confusion and war still prevailed, the Carlist insurrec- 
tions in the North continued, and there were risings in dif- 
ferent cities. In September, 1873, Castelar was made presi- 
dent of the executive with dictatorial powers. In 1874 Cas- 
telar was obUged to withdraw, and Serrano became nomi- 
nally President of the Executive, though in reality a military 
dictator. Meanwhile, the war against the Carlists wSs still 
raging. 

In December, 1874, Serrano proclaimed Alfonso XII, son 
of Isabella, King, and the army declared for him. Alfonso 
assumed the government in January, 1875, being seventeen 
years of age. In 1876 the Carlist revolt was finally and 
completely suppressed. 

In November, 1885, Alfonso died, and his widow, Chris- 
tina, became regent. In the following May a posthumous 
son was born who became king as Alfonso XIII. The Cu- 
ban revolt led to complications resulting in war between 
Spain and the United States in 1898. 

PORTUGAL. 

The province of Lusitania, under the Roman Empire, con- 
tained most of that territory now belonging to Portugal, 
the original inhabitants of which were composed of native 
Iberians and Celts from the north and east. The earliest 
colonists were Greeks, their towns being located at the 
mouths of the Minho, the Donroa, and the Tagus. The 
v/ord "Lisbon" is derived from the Greek word Olisipo. 

War and bloodshed may almost be said to have been the 



PORTUGAL 143 

regular order in this part of the Iberian peninsula between 
native tribes, and later, between Christian and Moslem, for 
more than a thousand years. 

In 1904, Yusuf, the Almoravide emperor, then eighty-seven 
years of age, became the acknowledged sovereign of Mus- 
sulman Spain, and ruled it in comparative peace for thir- 
teen years, dying at the age of one hundred. During this 
peaceful interval, Alfonso, King of Leon, BaHcia, and Cas- 
tile, which he had regained by the aid of that celebrated 
warrior, Ruy Diaz de Vivar, better known as the Cid, gave 
his natural daughter, Theresa, in marriage to Count Henry 
of Burgundy, who received with his bride a considerable 
territory in connection with the city of Oporto, and the title 
of the Count of Portugal (1095). In this way the name 
Portugal first appeared in history. 

One of the first acts of Yusuf 's son, Aly, was to proclaim a 
Holy War against the Christian states. He ravaged New 
Castile and carried his devastating work to the walls of 
Toledo. Alfonso's son, Don Sancho, a boy of ten, sup- 
ported by seven experienced warriors, went against him. 
The armies met near Ucles, in the "Battle of the Seven 
Counts," where Aly was victorious and the young prince 
killed. This stirred the old King Alfonso to avenge his son's 
death, and he defeated Aly, driving him back into Anda- 
lusia with great loss. Under succeeding reigns a national 
spirit developed. Alfonso I took Lisbon from the Moors 
in 1147, and made it his capital. His son, Sancho I, gained 
the title of "The Founder." 

Alfonso II and his son and successor, Sancho II, coming 
mto conflict with the Papacy, were both excommunicated. 
The reigns of Alfonso III and Dennis (1279-1325) were 
comparatively peaceful and the country progressive. Alfon- 
so IV had to defend his kingdom against both Moslem and 



144 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Castilian ; Ferdinand, son of the next king, Peter the Severe, 
was the last of the legitimate line. 

The reign of Peter's illegitimate son, John (1385-1433), 
is one of the most noteworthy in Portugal's history, made 
so largely by the discoveries and explorations of his son. 
Prince Henry the Navigator. A campaign against Morocco 
in 1415 resulted in the capture of Ceuta and the acquisition 
of nearly one-half of that country, which was held until 
1578. 

In the reign of Alfonso V occurred the Castilian suc- 
cession disputes (1474-76), in which that monarch was 
defeated at Toro. In John IPs reign Pope Alexander VI 
issued his famous bull of demarcation, dividing the new 
world between Portugal and Spain, and which gave to the 
former the territory of Brazil. During the reign of the 
next monarch, Emmanuel, Vasco de Gama doubled the Cape 
of Good Hope (1497-8), and in 1510 Albuquerque cap- 
tured Goa, on the Malabar coast of India, which has re- 
mained a Portuguese colony since. Under John III Por- 
tugal reached its highest pinnacle of power as a nation, its 
decline beginning with the expulsion of the Jews and the 
attempts of King Sebastian (1557-78) to make new con- 
quests. The latter was defeated and slain by the Moors at 
Alcazar Quevir in 1578. 

Bitter disputes followed the death of the next king. Cardi- 
nal Henry, resulting in civil war and the conquest of the 
kingdom by the Duke of Alva, and its annexation to Spain 
under Philip II. A successful conspiracy in 1640, accom- 
plished by John, Duke of Braganza, re-established the king- 
dom under John IV, the war with Spain terminating in 1668 
by the Treaty of Lisbon. 

During the reign of Joseph, son of John V, the minister 



PORTUGAIv 145 

Pombal made a war upon the nobles and clergy and ex- 
pelled the Jesuits from the country in 1759, 

In November, 1807, Crown Prince John, acting as Re- 
gent, owing to the mental condition of Queen Mary Fran- 
ces Isabella, was unable to withstand the efforts of Napoleon 
to divide Portugal, and so left the country and established 
himself in Brazil. Later, the country being freed by the 
successes of Wellington in the Spanish campaigns, the 
Crown Prince took the throne as John VI, though he con- 
tinued to reside in Brazil till 1820. In that year, leaving his 
son Dom Pedro as Regent in Brazil, he returned to Por- 
tugal and with British assistance put down the revolt in that 
country and restored order. 

Dom Pedro, who succeeded to the crown of Portugal in 
1826, on the death of his father, resigned in favor of his 
seven-year-old daughter, Maria de Gloria, who, when of 
age, was to marry her uncle Miguel. The latter was made 
Regent in 1827 and attempted to restore the ancient form of 
government, but was opposed by Dom Pedro, whose fleet, 
under Sir Charles Napier, defeated the fleet of Miguel off 
Cape Vincent in July, 1833. In this struggle Dom Pedro 
was assisted by the Quadruple Alliance of England, France, 
Spain, and Portugal. 

Queen Maria was fifteen years old when she took the 
reins, and it was said that neither ruler nor people knew 
how to conduct a government. A military revolt in Sep- 
tember, 1826, compelled the Queen to restore the Constitu- 
tion of 1822 representing popular sovereignty, and the Sep- 
tembrists further liberalized the Constitution. 

Another revolt restored the Chartists to power in 1842, 
and Costa Cabral as Minister controlled the country for ten 
years, when the Regenerators came into power, and through 
the Duke of Saldanha direct suffrage was established. In 



146 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

1846, Saldanha's forces defeated those of Count Bonfirm 
at the Torres Vedras. Later Saldanha was exiled, but re- 
stored by another revolution in 1851 and made Prime Min- 
ister. 

An uprising of republicans occurred at Oporto in Jan- 
uary, 1891. Supporters of Dom Pedro from Brazil at- 
tempted to get possession of the barracks and proclaim a 
republic. They were driven back by the royal troops, one 
hundred being killed and five hundred taken prisoners. 

In 1910 an armed rebellion effected the overthrow of the 
monarchy and drove King Manuel into exile, when the Na- 
tional Assembly adopted a Constitution and established a 
Republic which has since been recognized by the Powers. 




KIXC CEOKCE V 

OF ENGLAND 



CHAPTER V. 

THE BRITISH ISLES. 

The countries now known as Denmark, Norway and 
Sweden possessed a warlike population given over to sea- 
roving long before England as a nation was fully organized. 
The Norse settlers of these peninsulas were a Teutonic peo- 
ple, with speech akin to the Low-Dutch, who had gradually 
driven out the Turanian inhabitants, the Finns and the Laps, 
and occupied these sea-girt lands. Little influenced by the 
Romans, these Scandinavians developed a peculiarly striking 
civilization, which sent them as conquering sea-rovers over 
the coasts of Europe and even across the Atlantic. 

A century before Egbert united the Saxon Heptarchy 
(837), Gormo began his reign over Denmark; and two years 
before Egbert's ascension to the English throne Regnard 
Lobrock (835) began his reign in Sweden. These Norse- 
men were naturally no more warlike, perhaps, than the 
Angles, Saxons, or Jutes who had landed in Britain and 
either killed or made slaves of the inhabitants, a remnant 
fleeing to the western part now called Wales, inasmuch as 
all these tribes came from Denmark and the adjacent 
coasts and were known as pirates celebrated for burning, 
plundering, kidnapping and murder. A Jute was a native 
of Jutland, or north Denmark; and Saxon was the name 



148 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

of the knife which each one carried and with which he 
fought and slew those who resisted. 

In these early periods war was a common occupation. 
The fear of invasion tended to unity, and times of peace 
allowed tribal and personal ambition to keep the country in 
a condition of incipient civil war. 

The invasions of Britain by Julius Caesar (55 and 
54 B. C.) were practically two mid-summer incursion inci- 
dents of his campaigns into northern Gaul in those years. 
To cover the cost of these expeditions he took back with 
him large number of captives from Britain and the main- 
land, who were sold as slaves in the markets of southern 
Europe, and especially at Rome. 

No doubt many returned with greater military and civil 
knowledge and they used it in later invasions of the Latin 
forces. In the third invasion, in which Claudius himself 
took part, Caractacus, leader of the Britons, was captured 
by Ostorius Scapula and sent in chains to Rome. 

The only unity that the people of Britain had was in their 
religion of Druidism. The priests with their treasures were 
driven westward in the later invasion (43 A. D.) to the 
Island of Mona. As the Roman generals and legions came 
upon them the prayers of peaceful priests and the impre- 
cations of horrified women could avail nothing in repelling 
or resisting the short swords of the Romans ; and there took 
place a most horrible massacre, from which the peaceful, 
arborial worship of the Druids never recovered. There the 
cruelty of a high civilization exceeded that of the barbarian. 
While this was going on a revolt broke out in the East. 
Queen Boadicea, stripped of her property under the sem- 
blance of law, herself bound and scourged as a slave, her 
daughters ravished, appealed to her kinsmen and gathered 
them to the battle, and then occurred a tragedy indeed quite 



THK BRITISH ISLES 149 

equal to any of the many tragedies of the fight of might 
against right, or war against civiHzation. The British 
queen defeated the Romans and burned London (61 A. D.), 
but was soon defeated by Suetonius. The fruits of the vic- 
tory were afterwards perpetuated in the city of York. There 
Constantine, surrounded by the victorious sixth legion, was 
proclaimed Emperor (315 A. D.). The cup of vengeance 
was now full, however, and running over; the greed and 
cruelty of degenerate civilization was to hear another de- 
fiance akin to the ancient cry of the Roman Senators, 
"Carthage must fall." From the forests of Germany, from 
Gaul, from the Iberian coasts west and south, from the Huns 
in the east, from the very Alpine Mountains came the cry of 
the oppressed : "Rome must fall, Rome must fall," and fall 
she did ; and the weight of foreign military domination 
was lifted from the British land. 

The northern part of England was conquered by the Danes 
in 867, and Danish kings and earls reigned at York. They 
invaded Wessex, but were driven from that section by Al- 
fred in the year 878. However, he found it necessary to 
make a treaty with the Danish king, Guthrum, and he per- 
mitted Guthrum to hold the eastern part of England in the 
capacity of a vassal. To prevent further destruction of the 
churches and monasteries, a wantonness the Danes had pre- 
viously taken much delight in, Alfred also required Guthrum 
to become a Christian. The immediate followers of King 
Alfred were forced to do much fighting with the Danes, but 
finally they were enabled to bring all the Teutonic people, in- 
cluding Danes, Dutch and English, into one realm. It was 
King Edward the Elder who first received the homage of all 
Britain in 924, but it was a considerable time afterwards be- 
fore the Danes were all subdued. Under Edgar, who reigned 
from 959 to 975, Saxon England was at the height of its 



150 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

power, but under his son, Ethelred, the invasions of the 
Norsemen and Danes began again. In 994 England was at- 
tacked by both Olaf, King of Sweden, and Sweyn, King of 
the Danes. They were only restrained from the destruction 
of London by a dastardly submission and promise of tribute 
by the timid Ethelred, who fled to Normandy. The English 
nobles made a tender of the crown to the Danish monarch. 
Sweyn's death permitted the return of Ethelred, but the rule 
of the latter was opposed by Sweyn's son, Canute. Ethel- 
red shut himself up in London, where he died, leaving the 
name of king only to Edmund, who, in turn, was murdered 
November 30, 1016. So the Danish rule began over Eng- 
land. It was but a repetition of the same contest between 
Saxon and Dane. Canute having inherited the crown of his 
native country, Denmark, ruled over Norway and a part of 
■Sweden as well, and now he became king over all England. 
He was thus the ruler of all northern Europe and the most 
powerful prince of his time. Scandinavian princes ruled in 
Normandy and in Russia, too. The strife went on in Eng- 
land till it culminated in the death of Harold at Hastings in 
1066. One result amid all this confusion, militant and po- 
litical, was that a language and literature were assuming 
shape with a vocabulary larger than that of any other people 
of Europe, a language so strong that it now dominates the 
continents of America, Australia, New Zealand and South 
Africa. 

In William the Conqueror's raid into the north, with the 
wanton destruction of villages, towns and cities, and the 
slaughter of men and horrible suffering of women and chil- 
dren, the last remnant of the Saxons were driven north of 
the Tyne, and left there as a buffer between William and the 
ever-restless Celt. 

The period from the term of William of Normandy to the 



THE BRITISH ISLES 151 

accession of Henry VIII, from 1066 to 1509, some 450 years 
of strife, was given to wars largely over the question of the 
retention of Normandy and the extension of English terri- 
tory in France. Finally the claims to the whole of France 
and its throne solidified the opposition and unified the 
French into driving the English off the continent of Europe 
back upon their island, never again to rule over or govern an 
acre of the continent, with the solitary exception of the Rock 
of Gibraltar. Two years after the accession of William 
(1068) revolts broke out in the northern counties, whither 
the Saxons had been driven by the Normans. Added to this, 
continued landing of foraging parties of Vikings, harassed 
the coast from the Tweed to the Humber in the north. Wil- 
liam, roused to terrible anger, swore by the "splendor of 
God" that he would lay waste the land, and waste it he did 
by burning a strip of a hundred miles wide from Northum- 
bria on the east to Cumberland on the west ; only those who 
fled to Scotland escaped. In the villages the poor freemen 
were forced to follow a conquering army, many of them glad 
to sell themselves into slavery again for lack of food to eat. 
Not satisfied with this, he turned southwest to Chester, the 
"Pride of Wales," and laid it low as a warning to the Welsh, 
and so thorough was his work that no Viking landed on that 
shore. There was nothing left to steal, burn or kill, and 
twenty years later surveyors passed it by as a worthless 
desert. 

The Conqueror was succeeded by his second son, William 
Rufus. During the greater part of his reign of 13 years he 
was at war with his barons, and won a decisive victory at 
Rochester Castle, Kent. His sudden death gave the chance 
to his brother Henry, who succeeded him in 1100 A. D. He 
immediately issued a "Charter of Liberties," the first written 
guarantee from king to people, small, indeed, in itself, but 



153 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

mighty in its consequences, the precursor of the "Magna 
Charta" and the foundation of a constitution for free people. 

Henry's brother Robert landed in England and demanded 
the crown. The Ultra Norman barons supported him. But 
Henry bought him off with money, and Robert left England. 
Then Henry turned his attention to those who had aided 
Robert, especially known as "Robert the Devil." The Earl 
of Shrewsbury banished him from the country, forcing him 
to take refuge in Normandy with Robert. Henry declared 
war and defeated Robert at Tinchebrai, and held Normandy 
as completely as his father had held England. This victory 
and conquest coincide with the landing of the first English 
expeditionary force on the continent of Europe. Henry I 
did much for England and nationalism. He adjusted the 
courts of law, making them more equitable and free. He 
well deserves the title of the "Lion of Justice." 

Stephen succeeded Henry I in 1135 A. D. Four years 
after his accession he was confronted with the usual troubles. 
Matilda, the daughter of Henry, landed in England and 
claimed the crown. Scotland and the west of England sup- 
ported her, but the east held to Stephen. They met at North 
Allerton, in Yorkshire (1138), in the battle of the Standard. 
The Scots were driven home by the Saxon bowmen, and 
England was for fifteen years like a veritable place of hell, 
where robbery, torture and murder were every-day occur- 
rences. Neither church nor state had force enough to check 
it, and the Norman's house went down in a black pall of 
despair. 

The death of Stephen broke the line of strictly Norman 
kings as Henry H's accession marks the beginning of the 
Plantagenets— 1154 to 1399 A. D. Henry's unfortunate 
quarrels with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who op- 



THE BRITISH ISIvES 153 

posed the taxation of the clergy and the unfor- 
tunate and shocking murder of the latter, placed 
him in an equivocal position before the people, some 
thinking he was a monster who had deliberately murdered 
the saint of God, others thinking he was the one on whom to 
hang a centralized government sufficiently strong to control 
present conditions. Poor Henry was neither one nor the 
other; he was only trying to do the best he could. Henry, 
with the help of the common people, made the Barons recog- 
nize the fact that they were not the whole nation. With 
Henry we meet the realization that noble and peasant could 
live together in mutual respect. Henry took possession of 
Ireland in 1072. He died in 1189 A. D., and was succeeded 
by his second son, Richard I, who was king for ten years, 
followed by John, who reigned for seventeen years. These 
two, so different in character, exemplify the leading charac- 
teristics of the English people — the stay-at-home and the 
adventurer. Richard raised large sums from the Jews by 
selling charters to cities and towns — titles and offices were 
equally for sale — and away he went on the third crusade, 
spending the money with a reckless prodigality, enduring all 
the hardships of defeat and prison, as well as the intoxication 
of occasional victory. On his way home he was held prisoner 
by the Emperor of Germany for an enormous ransom, which 
taxed the people as cruelly as a continental war would have 
done, but he was able to check his brother John in his plots 
and schemes to take possession of the throne. By his cour- 
age and exploits he made England proud of him, and it may 
be said that he fairly earned the title of "Lion-Hearted." 
John, who was defeated by the French at the Battle of Bou- 
vian, was a despicable creature, but the people compelled him 
to be better than he wanted to be ; they forced him to sign 
the Great Charter, he afterwards taking a mean, contempti- 



154 WAR OR A UNITED WORI.D 

ble revenge by burning houses and committing robbery. At 
last, after being nearly drowned in the "Wash," he died 
miserably in an abbey nearby. 

During Henry Ill's long and turbulent reign (1315-1273), 
Louis of France was defeated at Lincoln, and Simon De 
Mont fort at Evesham. 

He issued a charter granting all that had been previously 
given, and enlarged the liberties of the freemen. He rectified 
the coinage, and subdued the Barons by the simple process of 
burning and destroying their fortified castles. Through his 
wife he claimed the county of Toulouse and to enforce his 
claim had to declare war. His Barons refused to enter into 
the foreign service, but were glad to contribute a personal 
tax, known afterwards as shield money or "Scutage." With 
this money he organized an army made up of Saxons, 
Danes and some Welsh, this for the first time in English his- 
tory. The King had an army independent of the Barons, 
and the common people had some share in the affairs of the 
country. 

To effect a settlement of his Normandy possessions, he vis- 
ited the continent in November, 1259, and while there a re- 
bellion broke out in the east of England, headed by Bigod, 
the Earl of Norfolk, and the Bishop of Durham. Henry im- 
mediately left France with his army of trained veterans, an 
army all his own, and moved north to give battle. The duke 
and the bishop, convinced of the hopelessness of their cause, 
submitted at once and so forever ended the opposition of the 
Barons and the Church to the crown. After many judicial 
reforms, which were of permanent value, he died and was 
succeeded by his second son, Edward I. 

Edward I, a king among men, has been acknowledged by 
all historians as having possessed a strong character, but sel- 
dom has its value been fully appreciated. To the student of 



THE BRITISH ISLES 155 

history he is the pivot of the coming United Kingdoms. In 
the midst of almost impossible conditions he conceived the 
idea of a united country. Think of the conditions : Wales, 
with a desperate people who never touched civilization unless 
to destroy, or to satisfy a wrong done ; Scotland, the venom 
of the vanquished Saxons, combined with the irrepressible 
Celt, who for a thousand years had contended with Norse- 
men, Roman, Saxon, Norman, and Ireland, the land of con- 
tinuous fighting among its own princes, where for many 
years past tribal contentions had resulted in little more than 
anarchy, were all brought into reasonable order. Edward, 
seven years before his father's death, was called on to take 
the management of the affairs of England into his own 
hands. 

Under the leadership of Sir Simon De Montfort, the 
barons practically took all the powers of the king from him 
and vested them in the hands of three committees of Parlia- 
ment, a committee from the Commons, Lords and Royal 
Council. The Commons got the balance of power, holding 
it to this day. 

De Montfort's position of absolute power excited jealous 
barons, and they readily joined Prince Edward, in order to 
overcome him, which they did at Evesham in "Worcester- 
shire." De Montfort died on the field, and Prince Edward 
took his place, though his father was nominally the king. 
When his father died, in 1272, Prince Edward was fighting 
in the East with crusaders in the third crusade. Much has 
been made of the religious side of the crusades, and not 
enough of the ethical, for primarily their whole effort was 
to check the advance of the Moslem and the Huns into Eu- 
rope, and this being achieved, the crusades ceased, and the 
Turks retained possession of Jerusalem. 



156 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Edward first subdued Wales and cajoled the inhabitants 
into continued adherence by giving them his infant son as 
the first Prince of Wales. He then turned to Scotland, 
overran it and garrisoned it with English troops, and put a 
puppet king on the throne in the person of John Baliol. He 
went home satisfied that he had accomplished his object, but 
he did not know the temper of the Scots. They gathered 
around Wallace and drove the English out, and would have 
made Wallace king had not the latter refused the title. This 
excited the jealousy of the aristocrats. Wallace was be- 
trayed by Monteath to Edward, taken to London and exe- 
cuted as a traitor, his head being placed on London Bridge 
on a pike. Officials sent the four quarters of his body to 
Scotland to intimidate the latter, but it only unified them to 
take an ample revenge, which they did at Bannockburn in 
the next reign, 1314, under the leadership of Robert Bruce. 
Edward died in 1307, having sown the seed of a united 
kingdom and founded a great empire. 

The reign of Edward H may be passed over very briefly. 
As he was always weak, the Commons gained more and 
more in power, until he was foully murdered by his unfaith- 
ful wife and her paramour, Roger Mortimer. 

Edward HI succeeded his father in 1327, at the age of 14. 
In the year 1338 Edward HI began what is now known as 
the One Hundred Years' War. He boldly claimed the throne 
of France as the nephew of Charles IV of France ; this 
was given out as the reason for war, but the real cause was 
his desire to retain possession of the French lands still held 
by the English kings. For eight years on land and sea the 
English and French fought each other without any definite 
results, until Edward landed an army in France and invaded 
Normandy. Cannon were used for the first time, not indeed 
to hurl shots into the ranks of the enemy, but for the pur- 



THE BRITISH ISIvES 157 

pose of frightening their horses. The great victory was not 
won by cannon nor by steel-clad knights, but by the sturdy 
bowmen, the common soldiers of England. Such was the 
battle of Crecy (1346), the first great victory on the conti- 
nent for England. Then followed the siege of Calais, which 
continued for almost a year before the town was starved in- 
to submission and forced to surrender (1347). After 
some years of peace, war again broke out. In 1356 Ed- 
ward again invaded Northern France and ravaged it. The 
next year his son, the Black Prince, gained the great victory 
of Poitiers. With only 10,000 men he found himself nearly 
surrounded by a French army of 60,000, but by skillful 
strategy and the steady hail of arrows he defeated the 
French. For three years longer the war went on until 
peace was made at Bretingy in 1360, by which France re- 
tained Normandy, and the English held Calais and the 
land south of the Loire. The French also paid an enor- 
mous ransom in gold for King John, a sum which England 
badly needed at the time. 

The deposition and murder of Richard II occurred in 
1399, and the reign of Henry IV may be described as 
abounding in semi-insurrections, culminating in the Battle 
of Shrewsbury, in the year 1403, which checked the revolu- 
tionary spirit to some extent. 

Henry V succeeded in 1413, in troublous times, to the 
throne of his father. In 1415 he resumed the war with 
France, more to distract the people's attention from domestic 
affairs than for any other reason. He besieged Harfleur and 
took it; but his army had suffered so much from sickness 
that after leaving a garrison in the place he moved north 
toward Calais, intending to rest and reinforce his army. On 
the way he was met at Agincourt by a Franch army of 
50,000, and fought against it with only 8,000 men. The 



168 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

ground was too soft to support iron-clad horses and mail- 
clad knights, and many went down before they reached the 
foe. To go down that day was to die. Those that reached 
the English bowmen expected to meet defenseless men and 
cut them down, but on the contrary were received on the 
point of stout stakes driven into the ground, the points of 
which stopped the enemy's horses and caused great confu- 
sion. The battle axe and the heavy pointed mace did the 
rest, and the victory of Agincourt (1415) was won. From 
the pointed sticks of Agincourt evolved the modern bayonet, 
which, with butt on ground and point before, was to turn a 
charge of cavalry. 

Henry VI was proclaimed King of England and France 
when in his cradle, and crowned first at Westminster and 
then at Paris. But Charles resisted. The Duke of Bedford, 
as regent for Henry VI, took command of the English forces 
in France. For more than five years they fought, till France 
north of the Loire was largely won. Bedford, victorious at 
Crevant and Verneuil, determined to reduce Orleans. With 
cannon to batter down the defenses, victory seemed certain, 
and if Orleans was occupied, opposition would be overcome. 
It looked very dark for France. But Joan of Arc, a girl of 
eighteen, entered the lists. She inspired her countrymen 
with fresh courage, and led them from victory to victory. 
The English feared her and thought she w^as a witch. But 
she converted the weakness of France into strength, and the 
English began to show signs of weakness. Deserted at last 
by the king she served, she fell into the hands of the English. 
Her body was burned at Rouen in the year 1431. The 
flames that burned her warmed her countrymen to enthu- 
siasm, and England lost all its French lands ; so the Hundred 
Years' War came to an end. It was begun by Edward III 
(1338) and finished by Henry VI in 1453. 



THE BRITISH ISIvES 159 

Before Henry VI had reached his thirtieth year, England 
had lost all her possessions on the continent for which the 
Hundred Years' War had been fought with France, except 
Calais. Henry VI had married Margaret of Anjou, and the 
English people, angered by the loss of the French provinces 
and jealous of this French queen, had an especial hatred for 
the Duke of Suffolk who had negotiated the treaty with 
France, and was regarded as one of the murderers of the 
Duke of Gloucester, friend of the people. Suffolk was im- 
peached and banished but murdered on the boat going to 
Calais. Another illustration of the popular discontent at 
this time was the insurrection, headed by Jack Cade, a native 
of Ireland, who for his misdeeds had been exiled to France. 
Assuming the name of Mortimer, with a force of 20,000 
men, he attempted to capture London and seize the govern- 
ment, but after a few days of riot was captured and killed 
(1450). 

The "Wars of the Roses" between the rival houses of 
Lancaster (Red Rose), and York (White Rose), which con- 
tinued for thirty years, in which twelve pitched battles were 
fought, eighty princes of the royal blood killed and the no- 
bility almost exterminated, began with the battle of St. Al- 
bans, May 23, 1455, where the Yorkists gained a complete 
victory. Similar results followed at Bloreheath, Strafford- 
shire (1459), and at Northampton (1460). King Henry 
was taken prisoner and Queen Margaret fled with the young 
Prince Edward to Scotland. Richard, who was in the strict 
line of descent, now demanded the crown, but Queen Mar- 
garet raised an army and at the battle of Wakefield (460) 
Richard was slain. 

The battle of Bosworth Field (1485) put an end to the 
contest, the lives of more Englishmen having been lost in a 



160 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

single battle than in the course of the wars with France for 
forty years previous. 

The Earl of Richmond, Henry Tudor, was thirty years 
of age when he was crowned on the field of Bosworth as 
Henry VH, the crown having been recovered from a thorn 
bush. Various insurrections soon required his attention, 
one under Lord Lovel, 1486, pretender to the House of 
York; Lambert Simnel, whose followers were defeated at 
Stoke-upon-Trent, June 16, 1487, and Perkin Warbeck, 
finally beheaded in the Tower, November 28, 1498. Henry 
was also entangled in an alliance for defending the Duchy of 
Brittany against Charles VHI of France. In 1509 Henry 
Vni succeeded to the throne, and joined the League of Cam- 
brai which Pope Julius H, with Maximilian of Germany and 
Louis Xn of France, had formed against Venice the previ- 
ous year. In 1511, however, Julius decided that the French 
should also be expelled from Italy and, without scruple as to 
his former alliance, formed the Holy League, in which Max- 
imilian, the republic of Venice, Ferdinand of Spain, the 
Swiss, and King Henry of England, all joined for the nomi- 
nal purpose of preserving the Church, but actually to drive 
the French out of Italian territory. The only ally of France 
was James IV of Scotland. The Battle of the Spurs was 
fought August 16, 1513, at Lis, between the English and 
French cavalry, where the French were routed. During 
Henry's absence on the continent, the Scotch invaded the 
north of England and were met and defeated by the Earl 
of Surrey at the battle of Flodden, where James IV was 
slain. The Scotch had crossed the Tweed with an army of 
50,000 men, while the earl had but 26,000 when he en- 
countered the enemy at the foot of the Cheviots, September 
9, 1513. 

Peace was made the next year with both Scotland and 



THE BRITISH ISLES 161 

France, and May 31, 1520, at the invitation of the French 
king, Henry sailed to Calais to meet Francis I of France and 
Charles V of Germany on "The Field of the Cloth of Gold." 
Henry acted as a sort of arbiter between the other two mon- 
archs. English diplomats may be said to have held the bal- 
ance of power ever since between France and Germany. 
Through all the centuries of continental warfare it has sur- 
vived to the present outbreak. Passing Henry's domestic 
and papal quarrels, and the executions instituted by himself 
and his daughter, Queen Mary, what was regarded as a na- 
tional disgrace to England occurred in the last year of her 
reign, when the Duke of Guise, January 7, 1558, surprised 
and captured Calais. 

After the battle of Hastings, the Scandinavians made no 
further encroachments upon the British possessions. Chris- 
tianity became established in Sweden in the middle of the 
twelfth century, and later on in Finland. Norway being 
united to Sweden, the latter increased in power and extent 
under its warrior rulers. All the Slavic lands on the south 
and east coasts of the Baltic, including Lauenburg, Mecklen- 
burg, Pomerania, the coast of Courland, and Livonia — from 
Holstein to Esthonia — were united under Waldemar H., 
1202-1241. The kingdom of the latter fell to pieces, Wal- 
demar being captured — while out hunting — by Henry of 
Schewin; and Hamburg and Lubeck became free cities, 
Vv'hile the German provinces returned to that government. 
By the Union of Calmar, 1397, the three Scandinavian 
provinces were united under Margareta of Denmark. Gus- 
tavus Vasa led a revolt against the tyranny of the Danisli. 
broke the Union of Calmar, expelled the Danes, and he 
was crowned King of Sweden in 1544. 

Elizabeth's long reign from 1558 to 1603, though filled 
v;ith intrigue, executions, expeditions and explorations, was 



162 WAR OR ^\ UNITED WORI.D 

comparatively free from martial warfare. Two exceptions 
may be noted, the most prominent among which is the at- 
tack and destruction of the Spanish "Invincible Armada" in 
1588. According to Motley the Armada included ten 
squadrons, or more than 130 ships, carrying upwards of 
8,000 cannon. It was intended to carry twenty thousand 
soldiers and to receive on its way 30,000 more from the 
Spanish army in the Netherlands. The causes for this at- 
tempt on the part of Philip II of Spain are not hard to find : 
First, the refusal of Elizabeth to marry him ; second, the 
surrender to him by Mary of Scotland of her claims to the 
throne, and lastly the influence of Rome. England was not 
yet Protestant, neither was she Catholic, but the domination 
of Spain would make her Catholic. Spain had the money 
and also the greatest navy in the world. When the navy 
was assembled at Cadiz, Sir Francis Drake entered the port 
and sunk more than a hundred of the Spanish ships. This 
delayed the movement for a year. Indeed, when the ships 
came it took stout hearts to go out and meet them, but How- 
ard, Drake, Hawkins, Raleigh, and a host of other brave 
captains, were ready. They captured several of the enemy's 
vessels, and one was blown up. The Spaniards made for 
Calais to repair damages and take a fresh start, but Drake 
followed them, threatening them with fire-ships, and forced 
them to make sail north, closely pursued by the English, who 
had not yet lost a single ship. The storm was so furious 
that all along the coast of Scotland and the north and west 
of Ireland the sea was strewn with the wreck of the Spanish 
boats. 

The other prominent military movement of Elizabeth's 
reign was the rebellion which broke out in Ireland in 1595. 
The condition of that island had continued to be deplorable 
from the time of its partial conquest by Henry II. Tlie 



THE BRITISH ISLES 163 

chiefs of the native tribes were constantly fighting among 
themselves, while the attempts of the English to force the 
Protestant religion upon them was bitterly resisted; while 
as a climax the greed and misgovernment of the rulers kept 
the people in a condition of misery. A war of extermina- 
tion began under Elizabeth became so relentless that the 
Queen herself said if the work of destruction continued 
"she should have nothing left but ashes and corpses to rule 
over." The barren victory gained by England has carried 
its own curse ever since. 

What was called "The Thirty Years' War" extended 
from 1618 to 1648. Inaugurated by the House of Austria 
for the purpose of subjugating Europe through the ruin of 
German Protestantism, it will be sufficient here to refer to 
the part that England took in it. The intense belief in the 
Divine Right of Kings on the part of James I, his con- 
temptuous refusal to hear and grant the petitions of the 
Puritans, his blind adhesion to the Episcopacy, in which he 
fancied his own preservation was involved, and the anti- 
Catholic laws, drove English Catholics to Virginia, and 
the Puritans to Massachusetts, Within ten years it is said 
that more than twenty thousand left England for the land 
of the free. James' adherence to the conception of the 
Divine Right of Kings was sharpening the axe for the neck 
of his son Charles, and in principle opposed the powers of 
a democratic House of Commons. 

To understand the execution of Charles, one must first 
bear in mind the actions of James I of England and James 
VI of Scotland. The former had become King of England 
by a fortuitous combination of circumstances. His rela- 
tions with his mother were never normal. The awful mur- 
der scene in Holyrood Palace, while he was yet unborn, the 
seeds of bitterness sown there, the strife of nobles seeking 



164 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

place, the religious hatred and the awakening of the people, 
all the panorama of the Thirty Years played in the person 
of James. But the part that England took in the war itself 
was small, and consisted largely in the sending of volun- 
teers and soldiers of fortune, mostly Scotch Presbyterians 
and English Puritans who fought in the Netherlands and 
under the incompetent Duke of Buckingham at Rochelle. 

Though James made a feeble effort to assist the Protest- 
ant party in the Thirty Years' War, his truckling attitude 
toward Spain and the fines he imposed upon Catholics so 
angered the Commons that the Gunpowder Plot to blow 
up Parliament House when the King opened the session, was 
entered into by a Catholic gentleman, Robert Catesby, and 
Guy Fawkes, a Yorkshireman. The discovery and execu- 
tion of the plotters resulted in the employment of greater 
severity toward both Puritans and Catholics on the part of 
the King. 

Under Charles I began the great Civil War between King 
and Parliament, involving partly religious and partly politi- 
cal questions. The struggle commenced in 1642 with the 
battle of Edgehill, Warwickshire, in which the Roundheads 
were defeated by the King's Cavaliers. Cromwell's army 
of "Ironsides" proved of better fighting quality, however, 
and gained victories at Manton Moor, 1644, and Naseby, 
1645, and also in the second war of 1648, which proved de- 
cisive. 

Charles II broke faith with the Dutch, seized New Am- 
sterdam, and thus brought on a war with Holland. At the 
same time efforts of English merchants to get the exclusive 
possession of foreign trade involved England into a war 
with France. In 1667 a Dutch fleet sailed up the Thames. 
It was said to have been manned largely by English sailors 



THE BRITISH ISIyES 165 

who had not received their pay. They made their own 
terms of peace. In the secret treaty which Louis XIV 
made with Charles at Dover (1670) Charles deliberately 
sold himself to the French monarch for £300,000, with 
which to carry out his scheme to destroy the political liberty 
and Protestant faith of Holland. This new war with the 
Dutch caused a financial panic in England and ruined great 
numbers of people. The Rye-House Plot, which had for its 
object the murder of the King and also his brother James, 
resulted in the execution of prominent Englishmen, some 
of whom were unquestionably innocent. The Rebellion of 
the Duke of Monmouth, ending with the battle of Sedge- 
moor, in Somersetshire (1685), the Bloody Assizes con- 
ducted by Judge Jeffreys, and the King's quarrel with the 
Bishops, were among the most sanguinary events of the 
reign of James II. His abdication and flight mark the van- 
ishing of religious and political persecution, as a reaction 
on the part of the English people, just as the administration 
of Charles II had resulted in the abolition of feudal dues 
and the establishment of the Habeas Corpus Act. 

The Revolution of 1688, which established a large meas- 
ure of personal liberty and the liberty of the press, was still 
an incentive to strife. In 1689 James II landed in Ireland, 
established his headquarters at Dublin, and issued his Act 
of Attainder summoning all who were in rebellion against 
bis authority to appear for trial on a certain day or be de- 
clared traitors, subject to be hung, drav/n and quartered, and 
to have their property confiscated. Londonderry was be- 
sieged and the inhabitants brought to a state of starvation. 
Finally they were relieved by an expedition from the river. 
The battle of the Boyne the next year (1690), where James 
was thoroughly defeated, settled the question in Ireland ; 
while the massacre in the vale of Glencoe, Scotland, though 



166 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

never settled as it should have been by the punishment of 
the assassins, practically ended the war. The Peace of 
Ryswick, a village of Holland, where the treaty was signed 
between William and Louis XIV, making the Princess Anne 
successor to the English throne, ended the conspiracy be- 
tween Louis and the Stuarts to change the religion of Eng- 
land and brought the continental wars to a close (1697). 

Louis XIV, who had only been prevented by the earnest 
efforts of William from annexing the Netherlands to France, 
desired also that his grandson, Philip of Anjou, on the 
death of the feeble Charles II, should become King of 
Spain. This purpose of Louis to annex a kingdom was an 
important influence inducing him to sign the Treaty of Rys- 
wick. William had tried to prevent Louis' design on Spain 
by the conclusion of two secret treaties, and also of a Triple 
Alliance made by England, Holland, and Germany, as 
against France. Louis XIV had signed these treaties, but, 
it appeared, without the slightest intention of observing 
them. When the king of Spain died, in 1700, besides send- 
ing his grandson, Philip of Anjou, to Madrid to occupy the 
throne, Louis placed French garrisons in the border towns 
of the Spanish Netherlands, and avowed it his purpose to 
m.ake the son of the exiled monarch, James II, sovereign of 
England, Scotland and Ireland. Accordingly began the 
War of the Spanish Succession, which really constituted a 
second Hundred Years' War between England and France. 

Spain had neither money nor troops with which to assist 
Louis, and the latter had no allies except the Elector of 
Bavaria and the Dukes of Modena and Savoy. Arrayed 
against him was the Grand Alliance entered into in Septem- 
ber, 1701, including England, the Netherlands, Austria, the 
German Empire, and a little later Portugal. Austria was 
supposedly most interested as possessing the rightful claim- 



THE BRITISH ISIyES 167 

ant for the Spanish throne; but each power had its private 
interests to protect. England's purposes were : 1 — The pro- 
tection of its government at home. 2 — The maintenance of 
a Protestant power in Holland. 3 — The retention of its 
possessions on the American continent. John Churchill, 
Duke of Marlborough, commanded the English and Dutch 
forces, and Prince Eugene of Savoy was leader of the Ger- 
man forces. Both were superior generals. Voltaire said of 
Marlborough that "he never besieged a fortress which he 
did not take, nor fought a battle which he did not win." He 
was pronounced "avaricious, unscrupulous, and perfidious" ; 
but, as Napoleon said, "The worse the man the better the sol- 
dier," and perhaps those qualities enhanced his success. 

Marlborough captured the forts in the Spanish Nether- 
lands which Louis XIV had gaiTisoned in order to menace 
Holland, and carried the war into Bavaria. On the 19th 
of August, 1704, was fought the battle of Blenheim, which 
the French call Hochstet and the Germans Plentheim. The 
alHes had about 5,000 killed and 8,000 wounded, the greater 
part of the loss occurring in the army of Prince Eugene. 
The French army was almost annihilated. Out of 60,000 
men, not more than 20,000 ever reassembled. Some 12,000 
were killed, 14,000 taken prisoners, and the capture included 
all the cannon, colors, tents and equipages, the general, Tal- 
lard, commanding the French, and 1,200 officers of rank. In 
less than a month Bavaria was subjugated. Gibraltar was 
captured the same year by the English and has remained in 
their possession ever since. Ulm, Landau, Treves, and 
Traerbach surrendered to the allies before the close of the 
year, and the Hungarians laid down their arms. In 1705 
the Archduke Charles, with a small English army, landed in 
Spain and captured Barcelona. Aragon and the neighbor- 
ing provinces submitted to him and the next vear he entered 



168 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Madrid. Marlborough penetrated to the heart of Brabant 
and found the French under Villeroi at RamilHes. The de- 
feat which the latter suffered here (May, 1706), cost France 
5,000 killed and wounded and 15,000 prisoners. In 1707 
the English army was defeated in Spain at the battle of 
Almanza; but the next year Marlborough and Eugene joined 
their forces in Flanders, making an army of 80,000 men. 
Although the French under the Duke of Burgundy and 
Vendome numbered 100,000, they were put to rout at Oude- 
narde (July, 1708), with a loss of more than 10,000 sol- 
diers. Ghent, Bruges, and Lille capitulated. The next 
year a battle at Malplaquet, near Mons (September, 1709), 
constituted a partial victory for the French, inasmuch as 
they lost but 8,000 men disabled, while the allies lost 21,000. 
A victory over the Germans in Spain (December, 1710) 
saved the crown to Philip V. The defeat of Eugene at 
Denain, France, (July, 1712), with the loss of seventeen 
battalions, practically ended the war. 

Three treaties followed: that of Utrecht (April 11, 
1713), between France, Spain, England, the Netherlands, 
Savoy, and Portugal; that of Rastadt (March 7, 1714), be- 
tween France and the Emperor; and the Treaty of Baden 
(June 7, 1714) between France and the Empire. As a re- 
sult Louis XIV was compelled to acknowledge Protestant 
succession in England, to renounce the union of France and 
Spain — though Philip was allowed to retain his crown, and 
England held her possessions of Newfoundland, Acadia, 
and the territory of the Hudson Bay Company. 

The military events in the reigns of the first two 
Georges included the quelling of the insurrection and battle 
of Sheriffmuir, in Perthshire, Scotland (1715) ; the War of 
Jenkins' Ear (1739), directed against restrictions on trade; 
the War of the Austrian Succession, in which George II 



THE BRITISH ISLES 169 

led his own troops at the battle of Dettingen, Bavaria; 
also the battle of Fontenoy, in the Netherlands, in which the 
French were victorious; and the Seven Years' War in Eu- 
rope and America (1756-1763). 

England espoused the claim of Maria Theresa to be the 
legitimate heir to the house of Austria, and opposed the 
efforts of Frederick the Great of Prussia, Louis XV of 
France and Philip V of Spain, to place Charles, the Elector 
of Bavaria, who had assumed the title of Duke of Austria, 
on the throne of Austria with the title of Charles VII. Hol- 
land was also on the side of Maria Theresa. The need of 
preserving a balanced condition among the powers of Eu- 
rope had come to be recognized; and both England and 
Holland desired to maintain Austria as a check against their 
ancient enemy, France. After some eight years of fighting 
an advantageous peace for England was secured by the 
Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748. 

A clash between French and English colonists in India in 
1751 followed by the smothering of 146 English residents 
in the ''Black Hole" of Calcutta in 1756 by the native Prince 
of Bengal, led to the establishment of the British Empire 
in India in 1757. Before this contest had closed, however, 
in Asia another had broken out in America. In Europe 
the aggressive activities of Frederick II of Prussia had 
produced such alarm that an alliance to check his further ad- 
vance had been formed by France, Russia, Austria, and Po- 
land. England found it for her interest to side with Fred- 
erick in order to prevent France from getting control of her 
American possessions. This course later induced France 
to lend her aid to the American colonists in securing their 
independence, and the latter were eventually successful. 

Discontent among the Irish and European antagonisms 
of various sorts led to repeated schemes for the invasion of 



170 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Great Britain. An attempt which was made by a French 
fleet and 10,000 men under the guidance of Wolfe Tone on 
Ireland in December, 1796, was rendered fruitless by a 
storm, and another futile effort was made in Pembrokeshire; 
but the master stroke was arranged to be made by the 
united Dutch, French, and Spanish fleets. Nelson did much 
toward allaying the ardor of the latter off Cape Vincent, 
February 14, 1797; and the French and Dutch fleet of the 
Texel, which had sailed under De Winter with 15,000 men 
for the invasion of Ireland, was thoroughly defeated by 
Duncan at Camperdown, on October 11 of that year. 

Napoleon, with his purpose of conquering the east set 
sail for Egypt May 20, 1798, and managed to escape the 
vigilance of Nelson, who, however, destroyed the French 
fleet after the troops had disembarked, in the Battle of the 
Nile August 1. Then Napoleon, with Spain's assistance, 
prepared to invade England in 1804; but the combined fleets 
of the two were driven by the English into Cadiz harbor. 
When in the spring of 1805 they left that harbor and had 
reached Cape Trafalgar, on the southern coast of Spain, 
the projected invasion of Great Britain collapsed ; for their 
fleet was destroyed by Nelson in a naval battle. A few 
years later Sir Arthur Wellesley drove Napoleon's brother 
Joseph from the throne of Spain and the crown was re- 
stored to that nation. 

The English opposition to Napoleon culminated Sunday, 
June 18, 1815, in the battle fought at Waterloo. Not all 
the forces of the allies were engaged, though, as they were, 
they greatly outnumbered the French. Austria had fur- 
nished 300,000 men ; Russia, 170,000 ; Prussia, 124,000, un- 
der Blucher; and there were 95,000 Dutch and English un- 
der Wellington's immediate command. Napoleon had 
crossed the Sambre June 15, with 124,000 men and 350 



THE BRITISH ISLES 171 

cannon. Grouchy, with 34,000 men, was expected to hold 
back the Prussians under Blucher. Welhngton, with a force 
of 72,000, was alined in front of the village of Waterloo 
when Napoleon and Ney, with an aggregate of 72,000 
troops, made their attack. With the arrangement of the 
French artillery and the readiness of Napoleon's cavalry, 
experts have held that Wellington must have been de- 
feated had Grouchy held Blucher's Prussians in check. Tlie 
arrival of the latter turned the tide, and Napoleon's sun had 
set. Waterloo ended the second Hundred Years' War with 
France. 

Since Waterloo, aside from internal troubles — notably the 
"Manchester Massacre" of 1819 — have occurred the Opium 
War with China (1839) ; the War in the Crimea (1854) ; 
the Rebellion in India (1857) ; the War against the Der- 
vishes of the Soudan (1896-1898) ; and the Boer War of 
1899, in which England conquered the Dutch Republics of 
South Africa. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE RISE OF RUSSIA. 

Previous to the origin of modern Moscow and the as- 
cension of George Danielovitch to its headship in 1303, 
which event followed closely the Lithuanian conquest, Rus- 
sia's wars had been principally confined within her own 
borders, nor were these conditions changed for many years. 
There were wars about the right of headship of the royal 
family and the throne of Kief, and about other civil rights. 
Two terrible internal conflicts desolated Russia in the reign 
of the Grand Prince Sviatopolk (1093-1113), one with re- 
spect to the principality of Tchernigof, the other concern- 
ing Volhynia and Red Russia. Such wars include also those 
between the heirs of Vladimir Monomachus, attacks upon 
and capture of the capital. Kief; wars with Novgorod, in 
one battle of which, that of Lipetsk (1216), 9,000 men were 
killed and but sixty prisoners taken; wars of the Tatars, or 
Tartars, against the Polovsti, whom the Russians assisted, 
and the battle of the Kalka, in which 10,000 Kievians alone 
were slain; the battle of Riazan, in which the town was 
sacked and burned ; the battle of Kolomna on the Oka, and 
of the Sit (1238), when "Russian heads fell beneath the 
sword of the Tartars as grass beneath the scythe"; when 
Moscow and thirteen other cities were given to the flames. 




CZAR NICHOLAS 

OF RUSSIA 



the: rise of RUSSIA 173 

There were also struggles between the contending influences 
as to the location of Russia's capital, ending with the estab- 
lishment of the supremacy of Moscow. For upwards of two 
hundred years these contests continued ; peace was unknown, 
nor were these internal dissensions brought to a close until 
the peace of 1494. However, peace was of short duration. 
Alexander, the second son of Casimir, took up arms to break 
the yoke imposed by the Polish Catholics upon the orthodox 
Russians. The struggle between Alexander, second son of 
Casimir IV of Luthuania and Poland, and Ivan or John III 
of Russia, beginning 1492, was a long-drawn-out series of 
bitter contests, ending in a truce of six years, brought about 
by the intercessions of Pope Alexander VI and the King of 
Hungary (1503). The succession of Vassili Ivanovitch, in 
1505, brought no cessation to the internal troubles of the 
empire until he was banished to a monastery, being accused 
of heresy and of false interpretation of the sacred books. 
Throughout the reign of Ivan IV the country was torn by 
contending factions, the principal warlike event of his reign 
being the siege and reduction of the City of Kazan, in which 
the Tartar population was literally exterminated. During 
his reign the Russian Aristocracy were special victims of his 
fury. Against this class he continually waged a war of 
cruelty, destroying his enemies indiscriminately, and subse- 
quently asking the prayers of the Church for his victims. 
He died in 1534, and was succeeded by Ivan the Terrible, 
who took the title of Tzar, and whose reign marked the in- 
troduction of printing in Russia, besides the expulsion of the 
Tartars and the waging of various foreign wars. 

Ivan the Terrible was succeeded by Feodor Ivanovitch 
(1584), who shortly after his elevation found himself at war 
with both Sweden and Poland. The Poles refused to ac- 
cept any monarch who was not a Catholic, and having chosen 



174 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Sigismond, son of the King of Sweden, as their ruler, Russia 
at once declared war. This war resulted disastrously to both 
Russia and Poland, as the latter practically lost her nation- 
ality, while Sweden elected Charles Vasa as her ruler. Feodor 
was succeeded by Boris Godounof (1598), whose reign was 
marked by a war with Sweden in which Russia recaptured 
all that had been taken from Ivan the Terrible — lam, Ivan- 
gorod and Kaporie; also by the successful efforts made by 
Boris to conciliate and obtain the favor of England. An 
edict of his forbidding peasants to go from one estate to an- 
other practically bound the peasants to the soil and laid the 
foundation for bitterness and revolution. Upon his death, 
in 1605, Demitri, the Pretender (the real Demitri had been 
murdered, it was believed, by Boris, a runaway monk), as- 
cended the throne. His real name was Gregory Otrepief, 
and he was assassinated in 1613, after a reign remarkable for 
naught save the sway of deceit and dishonor. Then fol- 
lowed the election of Michael Romanof (1613) and the 
foundation of the Russian royal family of that name. Under 
his regime the war with Sweden was brought to a close, and 
Russia, emerging from her centuries of internal turmoils, 
became a European nation. Peace reigned for a period of 
eight years, at the conclusion of which a holy war was de- 
clared by Turkey. Cossacks of the Don surprised and cap- 
tured the City of Azof and offered it as a gift to the Tzar 
of Moscow, who declined to accept it and ordered its de- 
struction. Upon the death of the first of the Romanofs, 
Alexis Mikhailovitch ascended the throne in 1645. The 
same year the breaking out of the Fronds in France (1648) 
was followed by the outbreak of a terrible revolt in 
Moscow, which defied the efforts of the army and was only 
quelled when the Tzar granted every concession demanded 
by those in the uprising. Rebellion broke out in Eastern 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 175 

Russia in 1668, the forces in revolt being led by Stenko Ra- 
zine, a Cossack of the Don. It was a war of the Tartars, 
Tchouvaches, Mordvians and Tcheremisses;, against the 
domination of Russia, and ended only by the defeat of Ra- 
zine in 1671. Razine was executed that year at Moscow. 
The reign of this Tzar Alexis, father of Peter the Great, 
marked the first efforts towards genuine reform in Russia. 
Alexis encouraged education, united the various religious 
schisms, and founded the Russian church. A religious re- 
volt took place among the monasteries of the White Sea. 
where the monks, attached to their ancient customs, fortified 
the convent of Solovetski, and were only dislodged after a 
siege of eight years. It was then taken by assault and the 
rebels hung. Alexis had by his first wife, Maria Miloslavski, 
two sons (Feodor and Ivan) and six daughters, and by hij^ 
second wife, Natalia Narychkim, one son (Peter the Great) 
and two daughters. As the kinsmen of each wife surrounded 
the throne, on the death of Feodor (1G83), there Avere two 
factions contending for the succession. 

The regency of Sophia, eldest daughter of .\lexis, was 
marked by many stirring events, chief among them being the 
revolt of the people of Moscow, who, believing that Ivan, the 
son of Alexis, had been murdered, stoned the Kremlin, and. 
after they had ascertained that the stories of Ivan's death 
were not true, wreaked their vengeance by committing many 
outrages. The result was that Sophia triumphed and reigned 
in the name of her two sons, Ivan, a half-witted youth, and 
Peter. In 1689 she dispatched an army of 150,000 men to 
the Crimea to evercome the Ottoman forces in that country. 
Two expeditions were undertaken, both of which were un- 
successful. 

Peter, then a young boy, quarreled with his mother, the 
Tzarina, and through the assistance of the advanced think- 



17(» WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

ers, who supported his cause, the Tzarina's chief advisers 
were disgraced or executed, and Sophia was confined in a 
monastery, where she remained until her death, Peter taking 
the throne. In 1697 Peter suppressed a revolt of the Streltsi, 
or national guard, and soon after his return to Russia from 
a trip through Europe for the purpose of acquiring at first 
hand the knowledge necessary to develop his empire, caused 
a thousand to be executed, cutting ofif five heads himself. 
On his return to Russia, he began at once to set on foot the 
policy of seeking in every direction an outlet into ice-free 
seas, and selected the Black Sea as the most available for a 
first move. He secured for Russia access to the Black Sea 
on the south, and determined to dispute with Sweden for 
possession of the Baltic Sea on the north. It should be re- 
membered that Finland, Carelia, Ingria,, Esthonia and other 
districts east of the Baltic at this time all belonged to Swe- 
den, and the possession of Pomerania, Rugen and Bremen 
made her one of the most important members of the German 
Empire. Russia was comparatively of small area and in- 
• fluence at this time. Peter made an alliance with Denmark 
and Poland and declared war, but his forces were defeated 
by the Swedish army under Charles XII at Narva on No- 
vember 30. 1700. In 1703 Peter seized the Swedish fortress 
of Nyonschanz, near the mouth of the Neva, and there laid 
the foundation of the new capital. Saint Petersburg, now 
called Petrograd. During the following six years his armies 
were defeated by the Swedes, until, in 1709. Charles XII 
rashly invaded Russia, and his army was disastrously re- 
pulsed and cut to pieces at Pultowa. There the Swedish 
king confronted an entirely different force from the army he 
had routed at Narva six years before. Peter had disbanded 
the old regular army of the empire, the Strelitzes, and had 
employed foreign officers to instruct and drill his new army. 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 177 

Charles XII had traversed Poland, being uniformly success- 
ful in all his campaigns until he arrived on the confines of 
Lithuania, within ten days' march of the Russian frontier, 
before which time the Tzar, alarmed at his approach, had 
made him proposals of peace. In October, 1708, the Swed- 
ish army, under General Lewenhaupt, met with a decided 
repulse near the Borysthenes, losing upwards of 8,000 men 
and all its cannon and ammunition, as well as all the provis- 
ions trains on which Charles and his starving army were re- 
lying. The Swedish forces went into winter quarters in the 
Ukraine, but, in the spring of 1709, moved forward toward 
Moscow and invested the fortified town of Pultowa, on the 
River Vorksea, a place where the Tzar had located large 
supplies of provisions and military stores. This position 
commanded the passes leading toward Moscow. A general 
engagement was inevitable, and in this battle the Russians, 
after two hours of desperate fighting, broke the Swedish 
lines and compelled the army of Charles to retire, with a loss 
of nearly 10,000 killed and wounded. A few survivors of 
the rout, Charles among the number, swam the Borysthenes 
river and escaped into Turkish territory. 

The victory at Pultowa was the turning point in Russian 
ascendency. Russia wrested from Sweden more than half 
her possessions ; from Turkey in Europe, territory equal to 
Prussia ; from Turkey in Asia, an area equal to the smaller 
states of Germany, the Rhenish provinces of Prussia, Bel- 
gium and Holland; from Persia, an extent equal to that of 
England, and for Tartary a territory equal to European 
Turkey, Greece, Italy and Spain. 

During the war for the succession of Poland (1733-1735) , 
during the reign of Catherine I, Russia could not be moved 
from her object to remain mistress of Poland and Courland. 

Stanislaus, who had 



178 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

secretly gained the captial and been declared King of Po- 
land, was forced to flee, and, notwithstanding the aid of the 
French, the Russians were everywhere victorious. 

Following this war, the French aroused the animosity of 
the Electors of Cologne, Mayence, Bavaria and the Palatin- 
ate, took Kehl and other fortified cities, and deprived Aus- 
tria of the Duchy of Parma and the Kingdom of Naples. By 
virtue of the treaty of alliance of 1736, the Austrian em- 
peror demanded help of the Tzarina, and General Lascy 
marched 20,000 men across Silesia, Bohemia and Franconia, 
displaying for the first time a Russian army in Western 
Germany. After he had joined forces with the Austrians 
within two miles of the French outposts near Heidelberg, 
hostilities were prevented by the Peace of Vienna, and the 
Russian troops withdrew. 

A campaign against the Turks in 1736 by a Russian army 
led by Lascy resulted in great devastation in the eastern 
part of the peninsula. The latter pillaged the capital of the 
Khans, and laid waste the Crimea in such a manner that the 
country never recovered. The war resulted in the cession by 
Austria to Turkey of the provinces of Servia, Orsova and 
Wallachia, the Russians receiving as their share a tongue 
of land between the Bug and Dnieper rivers. 

In October, 1741, Elizabeth Petrovna, daughter of Peter 
the Great, was, by the assistance of many who opposed the 
reign of the incapable Anna Ivanovo and regency of the in- 
different Anne Leopoldavna, put forward as candidate for 
the throne. In this they were successful, most of the friends 
of Anne being arrested and punished according to the cruel 
barbarous methods then in vogue in Russia. 

The war of 1741-48 with Sweden, brought on by that 
country in its efforts to secure the territory taken from them 
by Peter the Great, was soon ended. The Scandinavians 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 179 

failed to show the prowess of former years. The Russian 
generals, Lascy and Keith, captured all the Finnish forts, 
while at Helsingfors, 17,000 Swedes laying down their arms 
to an inferior force of Russians. By the treaty of Abo the 
empress acquired South Finland as far as the River Kin- 
men, and forced the election of Adolphus Frederick, admin- 
istrator of the Duchy of Holstein, as Prince Royal of Swe- 
den, in place of the native prince. 

The war of the Austrian succession broke out previous to 
1746. For many months Russian diplomats were undecided 
as to which side should be supported, but in the year men- 
tioned an Austro-Russian treaty of alliance was concluded. 
In 1748 Russia took active measures to support her ally, 
when 30,000 troops were marched across Germany, under 
General Repnin, and took their positions on the Rhine. 
This served to hasten the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), 
after the conclusion of which the army returned to Russia 
without firing a shot or risking the prestige of the empire. 

The hatred of Empress Elizabeth for Frederick the Great 
of Prussia was very pronounced. There was, perhaps, suf- 
ficient reason for the lady's sentiment towards the emperor, 
who did not spare epigrams about her. This personal feel- 
ing, continued for a number of years, added to other things, 
led finally to a diplomatic rupture. Partially as the result 
of a series of intrigues, Russia finally found herself an ally 
of France. In 1758 the Russians, under General Fermor, 
again invaded the Prussian states, took Konigsberg, and 
bombarded Kustria on the Oder. In a series of engage- 
ments, ending with the contest near Zorndorf, Frederick re- 
pelled the Russian "barbarians," as he was wont to refer to 
the soldiers of the empress. In the following year, Soltykof, 
Fermor's successor, crossed the Oder with a Russian army, 
defeated the Prussians at Paltzig near Zullichau, and 



180 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

marched without further hindrance into the city of Frank- 
fort. Frederick came to the assistance of his allies with a 
force of 48,000 men. He met the Russians near Kuners- 
dorf, where he suffered defeat, losing all but 3,000 of his 
army. Frederick acknowledged that he saw defeat in the end, 
and made overtures for peace. The Russian empress de- 
clined to entertain proposals for peace until she had "re- 
duced the forces" of Frederick and secured the annexation 
of eastern Prussia. In 1760, the Russians entered Berlin, 
pillaged the state coffers and arsenals and destroyed the 
manufactories of arms and powder. The following year 
they conquered Pomerania and captured the stronghold of 
Kolberg. It may be said that but for the sudden death of 
Elizabeth, Frederick would in all probability have lost most, 
if not all, of his provinces. Under the reign of Elizabeth, 
Russia made great progress in the arts and sciences, and 
also improved the morals and efficiency of her army. 

The short reign of Peter III (1762), Duke of Holstein 
and admirer of Frederick the Great, was unmarked by the 
turmoil of war. Six months after his accession to power 
he was dethroned, and shortly thereafter strangled by Greg- 
ory Orlof, lover of the queen, and the latter was proclaimed 
ruler of all the Russias, with the title of Catherine II. 

During the first five years of her reign Catherine II pros- 
ecuted her plans for the final dismemberment of Poland, and 
in 1768 a treaty was made between Poland and Russia by 
virtue of which the constitution of the former, largely the 
work of Russian diplomats, could never be modified without 
the consent of the latter power. This was to legalize foreign 
interventions and to nullify the growth of Poland. No 
sooner was this compact perfected than the Russian troops 
evacuated Warsaw, and the other powers, parties to the 
scheme, sent deputies to thank the empress. But peace did 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 181 

not result. Confederations of Poles were formed at Bar 
in Podolia, in Galicia and Lublin. Agitation prevailed 
throughout the country, the result being that Poland found 
herself forced to commit an additional mistake. With a 
royal army numbering less than 10,000 men, application un- 
der the treaty was made to Russia for aid. A savage war 
followed, at once national, religious and social, which deso- 
lated the provinces of the Dnieper. The landowners and 
Jews saw the return of the bloody days of Khmelnitski. The 
massacre of Ouman, a town belonging to Count Potocki, 
horrified all Europe. In the end, however, the Russian 
troops were victorious over the Polish patriots. 

These events were succeeded by the first war with Turkey 
(1767-74). At the instigation of France, Turkey declared 
war against Russia. General Galitsyne, with 30,000 men, 
defeated the Grand Vizier, with a force of 100,000, on the 
Dnieper, near Khotin. In 1770, his successor, General Rou- 
anstof, defeated the Khan of the Tartars, with 100,000 
men, and followed this with a victory over the Grand Vizier 
at Kagoul, where 150,000 Turks were defeated by 17,000 
Russians. In 1771 Prince Dolgourki forced the lines of 
Perekop, ravaged the Crimea, proceeded to Kafifa, Keortch 
and lenikale, and put an end forever to Turkish rule in the 
peninsula. The previous year a Russian fleet had sailed out 
of the Baltic, made the tour of Europe, and, appearing on 
the coast of Greece, overcame the Turkish fleet in the harbor 
of Chios, conquered Azof, the Crimea, and gained control of 
the shore of the Black Sea between the Dnieper and the 
Dniester, Bessarabia, Wallachia, Neoldovia, a part of Bul- 
garia and the islands of the Archipelago. Russia would will- 
ingly have kept her conquests, but Austria took fright at her 
close neighborhood and raised opposition. It was at this 



182 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

point that the Turkish and Polish question crossed ; Poland 
was made to serve as the ransom of Turkey. 

The proposition to dismember Poland was suggested to 
Catharine II by Frederick of Prussia, who sent his brother, 
Prince Henry, to St. Petersburg to gain over the empress. 
The prince succeeded in presenting the question so forcibly 
that Catherine, who, realizing that she could not fight both 
Austria and Prussia at the same time, was finally forced to 
submit to the proposal of Frederick II. The partition was 
formally legalized by the treaty of February, 1771, between 
Prussia and Russia, and accepted by Austria in September 
following. 

This compact rendered the settlement of Russia's differ- 
ences with the Porte comparatively easy. The Russian army 
at this moment had the forces of the Grand Vizier sur- 
rounded at Shumla, in a position where Turkish defeat 
might open the way to Constantinople. Sultan Abdul Hamid 
therefore consented to sign the Peace of Koutchouk-Kair- 
nadji (1174). 

Affairs in Sweden soon after attracted the attention of 
the powers. Gustavus III, while still prince royal, visited 
Paris, associated himself closely with the aristocratic circles 
of France, and, being recalled by the death of his father, re- 
turned to Sweden, determined to re-establish the royal 
power, with the hope of securing the independence of the 
country. He then prepared his coup d'etat with the utmost 
secrecy, having already gained the support of the nation, in- 
cluding the army. On August 19, 1772, he overthrew the 
assembly and imposed on the Diet a new constitution, which 
guaranteed the public liberties, at the same time restoring 
to the crown its essential prerogatives. The revolution, ac- 
complished without bloodshed, put Sweden beyond the power 
of foreign intrigue, and caused great mortification to Fred- 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 183 

erick and Catherine, neither of whom was in position to in- 
terfere, because of the condition of Poland. 

Following the terrible plague at Moscow, during the sum- 
mer of 1771, and the fright caused thereby in the minds of 
superstitious people, the city was terrorized by destructive 
and frenzied mobs. Much damage was done, but, the plague 
subsiding, peace was restored, though the result of this re- 
volt in Moscow was soon apparent in several of the prov- 
inces. Prejudiced against being ruled by women, the igno- 
rant peasants accepted the leadership of imposters, and 
finally selected Emilian Pougatchef, a Cossack deserter and 
outlaw, to lead them in an insurrection against the empress. 
A race war, having the dangerous elements of social dis- 
tinction, began in the basin of the Volga. Entire districts 
were desolated by the revolutionists, who destroyed several 
of the most prosperous cities in the south. Pougatchef w^as 
finally captured and brought to Moscow, where he was be- 
headed. 

In 1787 conditions indicated that war with Turkey was 
to be expected. In the midst of her preparations to com- 
bat the Ottoman government, Catharine received the ulti- 
matum of Turkey, demanding the recall of Russian Consuls 
from Jassy, Bucharest and Alexandria; abandonment of 
the protectorate over Heraclius, vassal of the Sultan; the 
right of the Turks to inspect all Russian vessels navigating 
the straits, and the admission of Turkish Consuls into the 
ports of Russian territory. On the refusal of these de- 
mands, the Porte declared a war, which raged during the 
succeeding five years. In 1788 Catherine had 40,000 men 
to protect the Caucasus; 30,000 to defend the Crimea, and 
70,000 under Roumantsof to operate on the Dniester, while 
80,000 Austrians, under Joseph II, were on the line of the 
Danube and the Save. The Austrians were driven beyond 



184 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

the Save and were defeated at Temesvar, when the Em- 
peror resigned his command to Laudon. The war continued 
with unabated fury. In 1790, Catherine, following the 
storming and capture of the fortress of Ismail, the strong- 
est in Turkey, learned of the death of Joseph II and the 
succession of Leopold II, who signed a peace at Sistova 
(1791), but continued the war for several months till the 
fall of Akkerman and Kilia. General Repnin, with 40,000 
men, defeated the Grand Vizier, with 100,000, at Matchin, 
and the Grand Vizier's communications with Constanti- 
nople were destroyed. The Sultan implored peace, the 
Turks, however, escaping expulsion into Asia, a fate which 
they anticipated. 

Actual hostilities between Russia and Poland, following 
the efforts of the latter country to avoid war, did not actu- 
ally begin until April 17, 1791, when the tocsin sounded in 
all directions and the insurrection led by Thaddeus Kos- 
ciuszko broke out. King Stanislaus remained in his palace, 
taking no part in the uprising. Varying success followed 
the efforts of the Polish generals, but when Kosciuszko was 
disabled and taken from the field on the Vistula, his suc- 
cessor Varrjevski retreated to Praga, which was hastily for- 
tified to resist the oncoming victorious Russians. At 3 
o'clock on the morning of November 4th, 1794, the assault 
began. The ramparts were speedily scaled, and Praga was 
within two hours the scene of one of the most bloody en- 
counters in all history. The Russian General Souvorof 
pleaded in vain for quarter for the vanquished. The sol- 
diers, exasperated against the Poles, whom they believed to 
be atheists and accomplices of the French Jacobins, mur- 
derers of their comrades, disarmed in the revolt of April 
17th, cut down without mercy the entire Polish Army. The 
dead numbered 12,000, the prisoners only one. Souvorof 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 185 

was made Field Marshal by the Empress. In the partition 
which followed, Russia took the rest of Lithuania as far 
as the Niemen, and the rest of Volhynia to the Bug, and 
finally acquired Courland and Samogitia. But notwith- 
standing this overwhelming victory, and defeat of their 
cherished ambition for a reunited country, the Poles re- 
mained undaunted. 

Catherine had been really more useful to France than to 
the coalition — and this despite of her own wishes. Prussia 
and Austria had both become suspicious of her because of 
her intervention in Poland and her projects in the east. 
But she played one country against the other ; made the sec- 
ond partition of Poland with Frederick William in spite of 
Austria; and effected the third partition with Francis II of 
Austria, to the disgust of Prussia. When she died, in No- 
vember, 1796, the frontiers of Russia had been extended 
more than by any previous sovereign since the term of Ivan 
the Terrible. She had gained the boundaries of the Nie- 
men, the Dniester, and the Black Sea. 

Paul I, upon his succession to the throne, on November 
17, 1796, was forty-two years of age. He was a man of 
some natural ability, but a despot at heart, and had always 
been eccentric, and had constantly acted in opposition to his 
mother. 

Questioned by the Austrians on his passage to Vienna as 
to his orders, Suvoroff showed them a blank paper signed 
by the Emperor Paul. His military formulae, given to his 
soldiers, was : "A sudden glance, rapidity, impetuosity ! The 
van of the army is not to wait for the rear! Musket balls 
are fools; bayonets do the business; the French beat the 
Austrians in columns, and we will beat them in columns!" 

Beginning with the autumn of 1798, Europe was again 
racked by a warlike combination, destined to change the 



186 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

map of the entire continent. Owing to its seizure of the 
Ionian Islands, the French Directory found itself suddenly 
confronted by a coalition including Italy, Switzerland, Hol- 
land and Naples, soon to be augmented by the forces of 
England and Russia. 

Suvoroff, the Russian commander, assumed command of 
the allied forces, the Austro-Russians outnumbering the 
French under Moreau more than three to one. Souvorof 
crossed the River Adda, penetrated the center of Moreau, 
and surrounded the right wing of his army, capturing about 
3,000 prisoners. Forcing Moreau into the Alps for refuge, 
SuvorofT entered Milan amidst the acclamation of the no- 
bles, priests and excited populace, of all the enemies of the 
revolution, and immediately abolished the Cisalpine Re- 
public. 

After defeating the Austrians on the Tidona, the French 
Marshal McDonald, at the head of the army of Naples, came 
up with Suvoroff on the Trebbia. A fierce engagement en- 
sued, each army losing about twelve thousand men, when 
McDonald rejoined Moreau in the gorges of the Alps. In 
the latter part of July, 1799, the Directorate made and lost 
its contest to recover Italy. Quarrels arose in the ranks of 
the allies, resulting in the separation of the Russians and 
Austrians, the latter not being able to endure the vanity of 
Suvoroff. The result was that Suvorofif took command 
of a force dispatched to defend the mountains of Helvetia. 
Marshal Massena was quietly waiting with a force of 60,- 
000 men on the heights of Albis, for an opportunity to 
strike Suvoroff. September 25 he surprised the passage 
of the Linimat, near Dietiken, and cut the Russian Army in 
two. The battle continued all the next day, when the Rus- 
sians fell back on Zurich, leaving the field covered with 
dead and wounded. They had lost 6,000 men, their guns, 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 187 

the army treasure, official papers, and sacred plate. Then 
Marshal Oudinot attacked Zurich, the Swiss legion, and 
took all the Russian stores and baggage. 

Suvoroff, forced to retreat, was compelled to take his 
army over the St. Gotthard Pass, during which march his 
men suffered great hardships, reaching Multenthal on the 
26th of September, after losing 2,000 of his army. In his 
retreat he successfully made the passage across Mont Bragel 
in the deep snow and intense cold, and, with the remnant of 
his army, went into winter quarters between the Iller and 
the Lech rivers. 

During the short alliance between Paul and Napoleon, the 
former, having broken with England owing to the fact that 
the latter would not recognize him as Grand Master of 
Malta and owner of the island, a Russo-French expedition 
was planned to conquer British India. 

The death of Emperor Paul (March 23, 1801), and the 
ascension of Alexander I were followed immediately by the 
series of contests in which Napoleon as First Consul of 
France, and afterwards Emperor, practically disrupted all 
of Europe, and made himself dictator of the policies 
of the powers. Alexander, the new Russian Czar, 
made unsuccessful efforts to bring about peace between the 
warring nations of the continent, having in view, however, 
the domination of Russia so far as concerned the control of 
Poland, the Dardanelles, and Sweden. In his demands in 
favor of Sardinia, the Emperor did not feel that he had the 
support of England. On October 8, 1801, a treaty was 
signed between France and Russia, followed by the adoption, 
on October 11, of the following articles: 1 — Mediation for 
the German indemnities stipulated by the peace of Lune- 
ville. 2 — An agreement regarding Italian affairs. 3 — 
Mediation of Russia for peace between France and Turkey. 



188 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

4 — Evacuation by the French of the territory of Naples. 
5 — Indemnity of Sardinia. 6 — Indemnity to sovereigns of 
Bavaria, Wurtemberg and Baden. 7 — The independence 
of the Ionian islands. In all these affairs the will of 
France predominated. Here followed more or less diplo- 
matic intrigue preceding the execution of the Due d'Enghien, 
owing to the increased misunderstanding between the 
French and Russian cabinet. Because of this event, 
Hedouville, the French Ambassador at St. Petersburg, 
found himself persona non grata at the Russian Court. 
The French government was presented with a note protest- 
ing against the violation of international law. A similar 
note was laid before the Diet at Ratisbon, which Svv^eden and 
England hastened to ratify. The French Minister was re- 
called. France replied with an insulting letter to the cor- 
respondence implying Russia's right to interfere in the af- 
fairs of Germany, and, as a result, all diplomatic relations 
were broken off. Napoleon had just been crowned Em- 
peror; had taken the crown of Italy, united Genoa to the 
French territory, and modified the constitution of Holland. 
He had threatened England, and was preparing for its in- 
vasion, when the coalition against him became public. Brit- 
ain entered the list against him, followed by Sweden and 
Naples ; Austria attacked Bavaria, the ally of Napoleon, and 
war became inevitable. Alexander, following the violation 
of the territory of Anspach and Baireuth, held his famous 
interview, near the tomb of Frederick the Great, with the 
King and Queen of Prussia, followed by the treaty of Pots- 
dam, Prussia undertaking to furnish 80,000 soldiers, pro- 
vided Napoleon did not accept this ultimatum, which stip- 
ulated the independence of Germany and Italy and pay- 
ment of an indemnity to the King of Sardinia. 

During the negotiations the Russian army was being 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 189 

mobilized. Beside the three Austrian armies in Italy, the 
Tyrol and Bavaria, there were put in motion 20,000 men 
under Tolstoi, 20,000 under Admiral Seniavine, who were 
to join the English at Naples, and the great army of Ger- 
many, consisting of 45,000, hastening to the river Inn, to 
unite with Mack, the force including all the Imperial Guards, 
the flower of the army. General Koutovzof had reached 
Braunau, on the Inn, when the news reached him of the 
capitulation of Ulm, and the annihilation of Mack's army. 
To escape being cut off on the right bank of the Danube by 
Murat's cavalry, and on the left bank by the corps of Mon- 
tier, Koutovzof retreated, giving battle to Oudinot at Laue- 
back in Amstettin. He then crossed the Danube at Krems, 
fought the battle of Dirnstein with Mortier, and marched 
north to join the great Russian Army. A surprise at the 
bridge of Vienna by Lannes and Murat endangered his left 
flank, when he found that in order to save his army his 
rear guard must be sacrificed. He entrenched himself at 
Hollabrunn. Murat came up first. He wished to gain 
time in order to allow Lannes to join him and granted an 
armistice, but Napoleon, incensed at the delay, ordered an 
immediate attack. A desperate engagement of twelve hours' 
duration followed, when under cover of night the Russian 
army retreated, having lost 2,000 men and all its guns. 
The Russian and Austrian troops numbering 80,000 men 
were concentrated at Olmutz, while Napoleon, with 70,000 
men, was concentrating at Brunn. 

But in the battle of Austerlitz the Russians were defeated 
and forced to retreat. On December 4, after an audience 
with the emperor. Napoleon allowed the Russian army to 
retire, on condition that it was to return to Russia by stages, 
its progress to be regulated by hirnself. On the 26th the 
Treaty of Presburg was signed, under which Francis II of 



190 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Austria gave up the Tyrol and Austrian Swabia, and also 
the title of emperor. The King of Naples was dethroned 
and replaced by Joseph Bonaparte, Murat became Grand 
Duke of Berg, and, in fact, the entire map of northeastern 
Europe was changed at the dictation of the little Corsican. 

The defeat of the coalition and the divisions affected un- 
der this wholesale partition by Napoleon, and the desertion 
of Austria, left Russia almost alone on the continent. Dur- 
ing the following year, a coalition between Russia, England, 
Sweden and Prussia was made, but Russia bore the brunt 
of the struggle. The French occupied Berlin, and took the 
fortresses on the Oder and the Vistula. Nothing remained 
to Frederick William in the north but three fortresses, Dant- 
zig, Konigsberg and Memel, and a small army of 14,000 
men under Lestocq. 

After Austerlitz, Russia tried to negotiate with Napoleon, 
but her overtures met with no success. The result was that 
Alexander, secure against Prussia, began the formation of 
a new army, recruiting one man in every hundred in the 
empire. He summoned students and young nobles to his 
assistance, promising to them promotion after six months' 
service. The priests were ordered to proclaim everywhere 
that war was made — "was made not for vainglory, but for 
the salvation of the country." England was asked for a loan 
of 6,000,000 francs, and Austria was appealed to for help. 
An army of 88,000 men was mobilized, with Field Marshal 
Kamenski at its head. The infirmities of the latter soon 
brought about retirement, and Bennigsen succeeded him, a 
man of boundless energy, though not a professional soldier. 

Marshals Murat, Davoust and Lannes had entered War- 
saw, then a Prussian possession. Soult and Augereau 
crossed the Vistula at Modlin and formed the center ; in the 
left, Ney and Bernadotte occupied Thorn and Elburg; Mor- 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 191 

tier acted in Pomerania against the Swedes; Lefebvre be- 
sieged Dantzig, and Jerome Bonaparte with Vandamme fin- 
ished the conquest of Silesia. Pressed by the Grand Army, 
Bennigsen was obliged to evacuate Poland, after severe 
fighting, and retired by way of Ostrolenka, leaving in the 
marshes and mud of Poland eighty field pieces and nearly 
10,000 of his men. 

While the Grand Army were in winter quarters, Bennig- 
sen conceived the bold project of passing between the forces 
of Bernadotte and Ney, and forcing the latter into the sea, 
thus relieving Dantzig and carrying the war into Brouden- 
berg located in rear of Napoleon. Bennigsen was disas- 
trously defeated; however, he reorganized the remnant of 
his army at Eylau, and took up a position to the east of the 
town, on a line of heights extending from Schloditten to 
Serpallen, his front covered by 250 pieces of cannon. The 
battle of Eylau was stubbornly fought, was in fact one of 
the bloodiest of the country, but Bennigsen again suffered 
defeat (Feb. 8, 1807). That field of snow, strewn with the 
slain, afforded one of the most tragic exhibitions in the his- 
tory of warfare. The French subsequently suffered greatly 
from the extreme cold and underwent numberless privations. 
Then followed the treaty of Bartenstein (April 25, 1807), 
which provided for: 1. The re-establishment of Prussia; 
2. Dissolution of the Confederacy of the Rhine; 3. The 
restitution to Austria of the Tyrol and Venice ; 4. The ac- 
cession of England to the coalition, and the aggrandizement 
of Hanover; and 5. The co-operation of Sweden. This 
treaty was important, as it nearly presented the conditions 
offered Napoleon at the Congress of Prague in 1813. 

In the spring of 1808, Bennigsen, at the head of 100,000 
men, took the offensive. He tried again to seize Ney's di- 
vision, but the latter fought, as he retired, two bloody en- 



192 WAR OR A UNITED WORl^D 

gagements, at Gutstadt and Aukendorff, when Bennigsen, in 
danger of being surrounded, retired on Heilsberg. He was 
finally forced to make a stand at Friedland on the Alle. 
Here, on June 14, the Russians were again defeated, losing 
from 15,000 to 20,000 men and eighty guns. Alexander had 
no longer an army. Only one man, Barclay de Tolly, pro- 
posed to continue the war, but in order to do this, it would 
be necessary to re-enter Russia, to penetrate to the very 
heart of the Empire, to burn everything on the way, and 
only present a desert to the enemy. Alexander hoped to get 
off more cheaply. He wrote a severe letter to Bennigsen and 
gave him power to treat. Prince Lobanof left on a mission 
to Napoleon, who sent in his turn Captain de Talleyrand 
Perigord. "Alexander had at that time," says Rambaud, "a 
common sentiment with Napoleon — hatred of the English. 
He neither pardoned them for their refusal to guarantee a 
Russian loan, nor for the calculated insufficiency of their 
diversions, nor for their mercantile selfishness." 

On June 25 (1807), the famous interview on the raft at 
Tilsit took place. Alexander and Napoleon conversed for 
nearly two hours, the King of Prussia being barred from 
participating in a conference on which depended the fate of 
his dynasty. Napoleon stated it was from "respect for the 
Emperor of Russia, and desire to unite the two nations in a 
bond of eternal friendship," that he consented to restore to 
Frederick William HI, Old Prussia, Pomerania, Branden- 
berg and Silesia. These articles were the finishing blow to 
the fall of Prussia. On the west she was deprived of all her 
possessions between the Rhine and the Elbe, with Magde- 
burg. Napoleon deprived her allies of Brunswick and Cas- 
sel, and on the east, confiscated all Poland. He thus broke 
the two wings of the Prussian eagle. On its right he estab- 
lished the Kingdom of Westphalia; on its left, the Grand 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 193 

Duchy of Warsaw. Dantzig was declared a free town, the 
district of Belostok, part of dismembered Black Russia, 
again became Russian territory. The states of the princes 
of Mecklenburg and Oldenburg were restored to them, but 
they had to suffer the occupation of their territory for the 
carrying out of the continental blockade, and, like Saxony, 
the states of Thuringa, and all the smaller princes of Ger- 
many, they were forced to accede to the confederation of the 
Rhine. The King of Prussia adhered to the continental 
blockade. His dominions were not to be given back to him 
till after the complete payment of a war indemnity. 

Two treaties were made relative to Prussia, that of Til- 
sit, and a second which was secret. A third treaty, both of- 
fensive and defensive, provided that an ultimatum should 
be made to England on the first of November, and that if it 
had no results, war should be declared against her by Russia 
on December 1st ; that Turkey should be allowed a delay of 
three months to make her peace with the Tzar, and that then 
the two high contracting powers should come to an under- 
standing to liberate all the Ottoman provinces in Europe, 
Constantinople and Roumelia excepted, from the yoke of 
the Turks ; that Sweden should be summoned to break with 
England, and if she refused Denmark was to be invited to 
take part in the war against her, and Finland was to be an- 
nexed to Russia, and that Austria should be invited to accede 
to a system of continental blockade at the same time as Swe- 
den, Denmark and Portugal. 

This change in the foreign policy was to bring with it a 
change in the composition of the government. New leaders 
were substituted in nearly every department. These changes 
and a rapidly growing antipathy towards the French nation 
and French ideas, previously in great vogue in Russia, caused 
discontent among the people. 



194 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

The alliance concluded at Tilsit and confirmed at Erfurt 
was to involve Russia in three new wars — one against Eng- 
land, another against Sweden, and a third against Austria. 
Besides these, the wars which had begun with Turkey in 
1806, and against Persia and the Caucasus, still continued. 
After the war with Austria (1809, April), or what has been 
termed the "comedy of contest," there followed the Treaty 
of Vienna, at which Russia was not represented. The em- 
peror did not intend to sanction the results, and by so doing 
left Austria unsupported. She was consequently obliged to 
make numerous sacrifices. The Illyrian provinces and all 
of Galicia were ceded. Napoleon added Western Galicia, 
with 1,500,000 people, to the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, 
while he gave Eastern Galicia and a population of 400,000 
to Russia (Oct. 14, 1809). 

The Servians were now becoming restless, their turbulent 
militia entering into a contest with the Pasha of Belgrade, 
and even defied the authority of the Sultan. They rose 
against the Janissaries and expelled all the Mussulmans 
from Belgrade. They would have been crushed by the Sul- 
tan had not Alexander sent them a corps under Colonel Bala. 
This difference was adjusted at the Congress of Bucharest 
in 1812, with the agreement that the Servians should re- 
main subject to the Sultan, but should be governed by their 
own local governor and assembly. 

The estrangement between Alexander and Napoleon be- 
came greater daily, the most important causes being : 1. The 
growth of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw; 2. The dissatis- 
faction of Napoleon at the conduct of the Russians in the 
campaign of 1809 ; 3. The abandonment of the project of a 
Russian marriage, and the substitution of an Austrian mar- 
riage; 4. The increasing rivalry of the two states at Con- 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 195 

stantinople and on the Danube ; 5. The Napoleonic encroach- 
ments of 1810 in northern Germany; 6. The irritation pro- 
duced by the continental blockade; 7. Finally the mistrust 
occasioned by the respective armaments. 

In 1810 the Senatus Consultum, by the decree of July, 
pronounced the union of the whole of Holland to the French 
empire; by the decree of December, the future union of three 
Hanseatic towns of Oldenburg and other German territories. 
Where were these encroachments to stop? Hamburg, Bre- 
men and Lubeck, free towns, whose commerce was an object 
of interest to the whole world, and especially to Russia, had 
become French. The annexation of Oldenburg provoked 
Alexander deeply. He saw his sister Catherine and her hus- 
band robbed of their crowns and forced to fly to St. Peters- 
burg. As to the continental blockade, although it was ob- 
served by Russia less strictly than by France, Russia still 
suffered cruelly from it. Her commerce was greatly in- 
jured and the value of her money had fallen. In December, 
1810, Alexander promulgated an edict, which, with the ap- 
parent design of preventing specie from leaving the country, 
proscribed the importation of objects of luxury from what- 
ever country they might come. This chiefly struck at French 
commerce. The forbidden goods were ordered in every in- 
stance to be burned. Napoleon was exasperated as a con- 
sequence, and everything pointed to war as inevitable. 

At the Court of Murat, King of Naples, the French En- 
voy, Durand, fought a duel with the Russian Envoy, Dal- 
gorouki. Alexander disgraced Speranski, the friend of 
France, and sent for Stein, the great German patriot. Na- 
poleon's mortal foe, placed by him under the ban of the Con- 
federation. Russia concluded peace with Turkey, negotiated 
with Sweden for an alliance, and with England for a treaty 
of subsidies. Napoleon signed two conventions with Prus- 



196 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

sia and Austria, which assured him the support of 20,000 
Prussians and 30,000 Austrians in the projected expeditions. 
On May 9, 1812, Napoleon left Paris for his army. Am- 
bassadors Kourakine and Lauriston were given their pass- 
ports. 

When the Grand Army prepared to cross the Niemen for 
the invasion of Russia, Napoleon had 290,000 men, half of 
whom were French. The left was in front of Tilsit, 10,000 
French under McDonald, and 20,000 Prussians under Gen- 
eral York of Wartenburg. Napoleon was with the center 
before Kovno, including the corps of Davoust, Oudinot and 
Ney, the guard under Bessieres, and cavalry reserve under 
Murat, a total of 180,000 men. Before Pilony. Eugene's 
command included 50,000 Italians and Bavarians, and the 
extreme right, before Grodno, was the command of Jerome 
Bonaparte, with 60,000 Poles, Saxons, etc. 

Alexander had collected on the Niemen 90,000 men, un- 
der Bagration, on the Bug, 60,000, under Barclay de Tolly. 
On the extreme right, Wittgenstein, with 30,000, was to op- 
pose McDonald, and Tormassof had 40,000 men to support 
this line. Later this latter army, reinforced by 50,000 men 
from the Danube, under Admiral Tchitichagof. was seri- 
ously to embarrass the retreat of the French. In the rear 
of all these forces was a reserve of 80,000 men, Cossacks 
and militia. As a matter of fact, however, Russia had only 
150,000 to oppose the allies. He counted on the devotion of 
the nation. 

The greatest mistake ever made by Napoleon was in not 
re-establishing the Kingdom of Poland as a buffer state, but 
in invading Russia instead, 

Murat reached Krasure, and a fierce battle was fought 
there August 14. Another desperate fight occurred at 
Smolensk on the 16th, 17th, and 18th, the place being taken 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 197 

and burned. Some 20,000 men were killed. Ney fought 
the retreating army of Bagration at Valoutina; and 15,000 
men of both armies perished in the conflict. 

The Russians fell back, burning towns and destroying 
provisions. Koutouzof, with the united armies of Barclay 
and Bagration, halted at Borodino, near Moskowa. He had 
73,000 infantry, 18,000 regular cavalry. 7,000 cossacks, 10,- 
000 militia, and 640 cannon, served by 14,000 artillerists ; in 
all, 121,000 men. 

Napoleon had concentrated from his marching columns 
130,000 men— 86,000 infantry, 28,000 cavalry, and 587 
guns, served by 16,000 artillerists. 

Beginning the battle with a frightful artillery fire, the in- 
fantry charges of the French were successful in forcing the 
Russians back and after an obstinate fight at the outworks, 
Koutouzof gave the signal to retreat. The French lost 
30,000 men, including 49 generals and 37 colonels, killed 
or wounded. The Russian loss was greater ; yet this battle 
was the death-blow to Napoleon's purpose. He could con- 
centrate 100,000 men. and Koutouzof but 50,000; but the 
French losses at this distance from their base were irrepar- 
able. 

The invasion proceeded and the burning city of Moscow 
entered September 14th; and on the 19th of October the 
Grand Army, with famine and desolation staring it in the 
face, began its retreat. More than 10,000 men had al- 
ready perished from hunger; and bands of armed peasants, 
of guerillas, and Cossacks were threatening on all sides. 
The roads in all directions save that to Smolensk, which had 
been laid waste, were barred by Russian armies. 

In the battle of Viasma, November 3rd, Ney and Eugene 
defeated 40,000 Russians ; but victories counted for little to 
men perishing with hunger and cold. Only 40,000 French 



198 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

crossed the Berezina the last of November, while 140,000 
Russians were around and behind them. The sick and 
wounded French left in the houses at Vilna were thrown 
out of the windows. Thirty thousand corpses were burned 
on piles; and when Ney recrossed the Niemen with the last 
remnant of the Grand Army 330,000 of its members were 
left behind dead or in prison. 

Alexander reorganized his army and after the battle of 
Dresden (Aug. 26, 1813) the Russian troops under Bar- 
clay, Ostermann and Ermolof attacked and captured nearly 
half of the French under Vandamme (Aug. 30) at Kulm. 
Russian troops participated in the victory over the French 
at Leipsic October 19 ; and also in the defeats at St. Didier, 
Montmirail, Chateau Thierry, and Monnans and Monte- 
reau (Feb. 17-18). At Craonne (March 7) the Russian 
loss of 5,000 was one-third their effective force, while the 
battle of Leon (March 9-10), in which Napoleon was de- 
feated, cost them 4,000 men. 

At the Congress of Vienna (Oct. 2), besides the settle- 
ment of the position of France, occurred the fourth parti- 
tion of Poland, in which Russia gained 3,000,000 (King- 
dom of Poland) inhabitants. The gains of Prussia in the 
distribution were 5,392,000 souls (Western Poland, Sax- 
ony, Swedish Pomerania, Westphalia, and the Rhenish 
provinces), and Austria 10,000,000 (Galicia, Germany and 
Italy). 

The Emperor Alexander was much of a mystic, and to 
him is accredited the Holy Alliance signed in September, 
after Waterloo, by the crowned heads of Russia, Prassia 
and Austria ; and also the expulsion of the Jesuits from Rus- 
sia, March 25, 1820. Yet his religion does not appear to 
have interfered with the national policy of extending Rus- 
sian domination. 



THE RISE OF RUSSIA 199 

In 1821, the Balkan states, largely peopled by the co- 
religionists of the Russians, evinced much uneasiness as to 
their state of subjection to the Ottoman yoke. The Greeks 
had formally proclaimed their independence of Turkey on 
March 25, 1831 ; and the Hetairia, or patriotic society, was 
promulgated in all the provinces and islands of Greece. One 
martyr, Rigas, was delivered up by the Austrian^ and exe- 
cuted by the Turks. Ypsilanti, the patriot leader who had 
served in the Russian ranks, did not believe that the Tzar 
would fail to support him. But the influence of Metter- 
nich, the Austrian Premier, was more potent. Servia had 
taken up arms also under Miloch Obrenvitch, and looked 
to Alexander for assistance. What happened? At the 
feast of Easter, Greeks and Servians were assaulted by the 
Turks generally, and the Patriarch at Constantinople was 
seized at the altar and hung at the door of his church in his 
priestly robes. The Grand Vizier watched with amuse- 
ment the populace drag his corpse through the streets. Three 
metropolitans and eight bishops were slain. All Russia 
trembled with indignation. But the Tzar exchanged notes 
with the Porte, and the courts of England and Austria — 
and the massacres continued. But Russia in the meanwhile 
increased her territory by the addition of Finland, Poland, 
Bessarabia, and part of the Caucasus. To their indiffer- 
ence, the Russian people attributed the terrible inundation 
at St, Petersburg, and the premature and mysterious death 
of Alexander which followed. 

The reign of Nicholas I was ushered in (December, 1825) 
by a conspiracy and insurrection, which was soon quelled, 
though the aim of the rebels seems to have been to secure 
the independence of the peasants, a greater equality of 
rights, and more stability in the law. 

The next year war broke out with Persia — which lasted 



200 WAR OR A UNITED WORIvD 

two years; and also a war with Turkey which ran three 
years, the Hberation of Greece being effected in the year 
(1829). The Pohsh insurrection of 1831, and the inter- 
vention in Hungary in 1848 which seated Francis Joseph on 
the throne of the Dual Monarchy, were the chief military 
events preceding the second outbreak with Turkey and the 
Crimean war extending from March, 1854, to March, 1S56, 
in which England, France, and Sardinia, were allied with 
Turkey against Russia. 

The losses in the battles of the Alma, Balaklava, Inker- 
mann, Tchernaya, and assaults on the forts were as follows : 
English — killed and dead from wounds, 3,500; dead from 
cholera and other diseases, 22,000. The French lost some 
63,500 men, and the Russians 500,000. 




FRANZ JOSEPH 

EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA 



CHAPTER VII. 

GERMANY AND PRUSSIA. 

Though Caesar termed the Belgians "the bravest" from 
the time of the victory of Arminius (4 A. D.), the Ger- 
mans continued to be the most dangerous enemies of Rome. 
As we have seen, Constantine and Juhan had to make stren- 
uous efforts to withstand the Germans, as did Valentinian 
later; and the Germans, from their service in the Roman 
armies, as well as in other ways, gained in experience, 
strength and courage, and really grew stronger as the 
Romans grew weaker. 

As the Roman idea of empire was based upon Greek 
models, so the German idea, as well as that of the French, 
was founded upon the Roman. The glory of the state was 
placed before that of any individual, the Emperor alone be- 
ing excepted ; for he was the head of the State, by divine 
right. 

The religion of the Germans but served to accentuate 
their warlike tendencies. They believed in the great god 
Woden, his brother Frey, and his son Thor, who were all 
supposed to live in a gorgeous palace called Valhalla — Val 
meaning a brave death in battle. 

The Goths were a German people, who settled in Trojan's 
province of Dacia, north of the Danube. Though forced 



202 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

back by the Huns in the fourth century, they were never 
driven out of Europe. Savagery and lawlessness prevailed 
among- all the different German tribes. Conrad, chief of 
the Salians, was the first elected emperor (912) ; but when 
he found that his own following was not strong enough he 
advocated and caused to be elected his adversary, Henry of 
Saxony, known as the Fowler, who was crowned at Fritzlar, 
in Hesse, in April, 919. Soon his sway was acknowledged 
by the Dukes of Swabia, Bavaria, and Lorraine. He de- 
feated the Wends, a powerful Slavic tribe, at the battle of 
Lenzen in 929, when 200,000 of them are said to have been 
slain. The Germans had continued to resist the devastating 
invasions of the Hungarians or Magyars, decade after de- 
cade and century after century, till Henry defeated them 
in a decisive battle at Merseburg, March 15, 933. Otto suc- 
ceeded Henry (936 A. D.), and it was Otto's victory on the 
Lechfield (955) that put an end to the incursions of the 
Huns and forced them to settle in the territory they now 
occupy. The Franks, another German tribe, occupying the 
banks of the Rhine and regions westward, had assisted 
greatly in this result, as we have seen, by the defeat of 
Attila at the battle of Soissons (485). 

Otto was the first to acquire the Roman Imperial crown, 
with which he was crowned in the church of St. Peter's in 
Rome in February, 936, by Pope John XH. As Otto now 
assumed all the rights of control over Rome formerly exer- 
cised by Charlemagne, Pope John rebelled and entered into 
a conspiracy with the ex-king Berengar, to secure the aid of 
Constantinople and of the Hungarians. Otto, on learning 
of this, returned to Rome, deposed Pope John, and elected 
Leo Vni as Pope. Thus the Imperial dignity was won 
for the German power, and the Empire was joined perma- 
nently to itself. From this time on whoever was crowned 



GERMANY AND PRUSSIA 203 

King of Germany had the right to be crowned King of Italy 
at Milan and Emperor at Rome. Italy was thus again 
united Avith the Kingdom of Germany. 

Otto II succeeded his father, and reigned till 980, wag- 
ing wars with the Danes, — forcing King Harold to become 
a Christian, — and also with the Eastern Emperors over 
Southern Italy. Otto III, known as the "Wonder of the 
World," desired to make Rome the Capital of the world 
again. But his plans were cut short by death in 1002, and 
his successor Henry II, descended from Henry the Fowler, 
was the last Saxon Emperor. 

During the reigns of the Franconian Emperors (1024- 
1114) the domain increased. Burgundy was joined to the 
Empire (1032) during the reign of Conrad II; the quarrel 
between the rival claimants for the Popedom occurred dur- 
ing the reign of Henry III; the Saxons revolted in 1077, 
during Henry IV's reign; and the king, after wandering 
about half-star\^ed and selling his boots to buy bread, died 
at Liege in 1106, Henry V dying three years later. 

During this period, which marks the beginning of the 
Middle Ages, the two great powers in Western Europe were 
the Empire and the Church. It was held that of divine 
right there were two Vicars of God upon earth, a temporal 
one, the Emperor, and a spiritual one, the Pope. This view 
was adhered to more consistently in the case of the Pope 
than of the Emperor, but it was held by the Emperors them- 
selves, as well. 

Germany was now the center of the Empire of the West, 
though, through the control of Italy and Burgundy, it had 
many subjects speaking the Latin tongues; while the 
Wends, of Slavic origin, dwelling along the south coast of 
the Baltic, in Mecklenburg and Pomerania, as well as in 



204 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Other lands beyond the Elbe, gradually acquired the Low- 
Dutch in place of Slavonic. 

Conrad III (1137-1152), the first of the Swabian Em- 
perors, took active part in the second crusade, and the civil 
wars began in his reign between the imperial and papal par- 
ties, called the Ghibellines and Guelphs. 

Frederick Barbarossa, during his reign (1152-1190), was 
forced to make no less than six expeditions into Italv to 
keep that country under control. Milan and some other 
cities in Lombardy tried to erect their territories into small 
republics. Frederick also engaged in a violent quarrel with 
Pope Alexander III, which brought on a war, and the Em- 
peror's forces were defeated at the battle of Legnano (117G 
A. D.). 

At Frederick's death Germany was divided as to who 
should become king, there being three princes, Frederick, 
Philip, and Otto, who had all been chosen kings of the Ro- 
mans. Little Frederick, the son of Henry VI, was but 
three years old; Philip, Duke of Swabia, was the only son 
of Barbarossa; and Otto, Duke of Brtmswick, was the son 
of Henry the Lion. Pope Innocent III, although Philip 
had begun to reign, decided in favor of Otto. Germany 
thus had two kings till 1208, when Philip was murdered in 
the Tyrol, the assassin being slain shortly after by Philip's 
son-in-law. Otto mixed himself up in a quarrel of the 
Duke of Brabant, the Count of Flanders, and others, with 
King Philip Augustus; and in a terrible battle fought at 
Bouvines in 1214 Otto and his allies were defeated. In 
fact the entire interval between Barbarossa's death and the 
ascension of the Hapsburgs (1190-1273) was filled with 
internal and foreign wars. 

Frederick II (1212-1250) made two expeditions to the 
Holy Land and had various contests with Italian cities and 



GERMANY AND PRUSSIA 205 

with the Pope. His son Manfred fell fighting for his king- 
dom at the battle of Beneventum. 

Tlie condition of the German Empire became such at this 
period that the crown was offered for sale to the highest 
bidder. Various offers were made and the matter was re- 
ferred to the Pope, who promised to settle it, but did not; 
and Germany was in a state of turbulence for many years. 
Historians note an interregnum in the German Empire from 
1254, the date of the death of Conrad IV, to the election 
of Rudolph in 1273 ; and these nineteen years are filled with 
bitter quarrels, warfare and murder. Conradine, the 
youngest son of Conrad, at the head of a body of troops, 
attempted to take control and his efforts were successful at 
first; but he was treacherously ambuscaded and captured, 
and given over to Charles of Anjou, Count of Provence, 
France, then ruling in Naples, by whom he was beheaded. 
The son of Manfred died in prison, as did other possible 
heirs to the throne. All the adherents of Conradine were 
treated with the greatest cruelty by Charles. This led to 
retaliation. John, of Procida, swore vengeance. By his in- 
fluence all the French throughout the island of Sicily with- 
out regard to age or sex, to the number of 8,000, on Easter 
day, 1282, were massacred, the tolling of the bell for vespers 
being the signal. The island was then given over to Man- 
fred's son-in-law, Peter of Aragon, who not only repelled 
all the attacks of Charles, but established an independent 
kingdom, the first king of Sicily being his son Frederick. 

The cities of Italy were meanwhile ruling themselves 
without much regard to the Empire, while the great dukes 
and princes, bishops of Germany, through seizing one claim 
after another, were becoming as powerful as kings. Seven 
of these chiefs were competent to elect a king of Germany. 
They were the three grand chancellors, the Archbishops of 



206 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Mainz, Koln, and Trier, with the King of Bohemia, grand 
cup-bearer; the high steward, the Duke of Bavaria; the 
grand marshal, the Duke of Saxony; and the Pfalzgraf of 
the Rhine. These were the royal electors, and sat apart in 
the diet, making up a separate college. 

The German cities, in the absence of an Emperor, had also 
become very strong. In 1241 a league was formed of the 
Hanse (Hanse, an alliance) towns, the most powerful com- 
mercial body ever known. Their fleets visited the Mediter- 
ranean, were capable of repelling pirates, and fought with 
the ships of the cities of Genoa, Pisa, and Venice. At first 
including only Lubeck and Hamburg, in the fourteenth and 
fifteenth centuries the Hanseatic League embraced as many 
as seventy cities and controlled three hundred ships manned 
by 12,000 sailors. At the height of its prosperity, the 
League included : 1 — The Wend towns of Lubeck, Ham- 
burg, Bremen, Rostock, Keil, Grief swald, Stettin, and Wis- 
by, etc. 2 — Towns of Holland and Westphalia, Cologne 
being the principal city. 3 — Saxon towns, Brunswick being 
chief, and including Magdeburg, Halle, Hanover, Erfurt, 
Brandenburg, Frankfort, Breslau, etc. 4 — Eastern towns, 
including Thom, Konigsberg, Riga, etc., under Dantzic. 
This League waged bloody wars with the Scandinavian 
countries and with England. Its chief executive, Alexander 
von Soltwedal, a citizen of Lubeck, sacked Copenhagen in 
1249, and burned the Danish settlement of Stralsund. To- 
ward the end of the centuiy they blockaded and plundered 
the coasts of Norway, seized the fleet of King Eric, and 
compelled him through the Treaty of Calmar, 1285, to grant 
the League a commercial monopoly. They waged a bloody 
war with Denmark and Sweden in 1361, prevented the in- 
corporation of Schleswig and Holstein with Denmark, and 
made the Danes consent not to choose a king without the 



GERMANY AND PRUSSIA 207 

concurrence of the League. Queen Margaret of Sweden, 
was forced to place Stockholm in their hands for three years 
as a pledge that she would observe the treaty. Later they 
attempted to dethrone Gustavus Vasa of Sweden and sub- 
ject Denmark completely, but failed in both projects. 

Much of the activity of the Middle Ages was in relation 
to the waging of the Crusades, religious wars against the 
Turks, and later, in other directions. The spirit of chivalry, 
which began to develop during the ninth century and had 
received great impetus during the successive expeditions to 
the Holy Land, and instituted military orders, such as the 
Knights Templars, and the Knights of St. John, came to be 
extended in other directions and by various classes. Thus 
the Crusades, which had at first been preached against in- 
fidels, were later directed by one class of Christians against 
another class; and by Christians against heathens. 

Thus Crusades were preached against the Counts of 
Toulouse and the Counts of Provence; and in Sicily they 
were preached against King Conrad, and later against Man- 
fred, when, as already referred to, he was slain by the 
army of Charles, Count of Anjou, to whom Pope Urban the 
Fourth had offered the crown. 

Nowhere did knight-errantry prevail more extensively, 
perhaps, than in Gennany and there extensive Crusades were 
stirred up against the heathen of North Europe. Poland 
became Christian about the end of the tenth century, and 
its Dukes and Kings had much trouble with their pagan 
neighbors, including tlie Prussians, the Lithuanians, the 
Livonians, and the Esthonians — all of whom were idola- 
trous, and by whom Poland was cut off almost entirely from 
the Baltic. 

In the reign of Frederick IL of Gennany (1212-1250), 
there was established the order of Teutonic Knights, who at 



208 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

first were invited to aid the Polish princes against the heathen 
Prussians; but later, under their Grand Master, Herman of 
Salza, were commissioned by the Emperor and Pope Greg- 
ory the Ninth — who preached a Crusade against Prussia — 
to conquer and settle that country. They carried out these 
instructions and another order of Knights arose in 1237, 
who joined the Teutonic Knights and established themselves 
in Livonia. The wars of these Knights were called Holy 
Wars, and fighting men of all nations joined their armies 
to fight against the heathens just as they had formerly joined 
to fight against the Turks. But according to history the 
Knights were often a greater menace to those whom they 
were supposed to help than they were to those whom they 
lought against. 

The Hapsburg, or Hawk's Castle, built in the eleventh 
century, is still standing on a rocky bluff in the small can- 
ton of Aargan, Switzerland, which in the year 1232 was 
the baronial possession of Albert, fourth Count of Haps- 
burg. As the historian Abbott tells us: "Religious fanati- 
cism and military ambition were then the two great powers 
which ruled the human soul ;" and accordingly Albert, at the 
head of thirty steel-clad warriors, with nodding plumes and 
waving banners, amid the sounding of bugles and clatter of 
horse-hoofs, left his ancestral castle to go to the Holy Land 
and fight the Saracens, but never returned. He died at 
Askalon in 1240. 

His oldest son, Rhodolph, or Rudolf, was twenty-two 
years of age at his father's death. As heir of the ancestral 
castle, surrounded as he was by barons of greater wealth 
and power, styled by certain historians "Robber Barons," 
Rudolf felt compelled to pursue the same course as others 
and increase his fortune by force of arms. He organized a 
military corps by which he extended his territory and some- 



GERMANY AND PRUSSIA 209 

times extorted money. In 1245 he strengthened himself 
still more by marriage with Gertrude, the beautiful daughter 
of the Count of Hohenberg, receiving with his bride the 
Castle of Oeltingen and adjacent lands. 

In 1253, Rudolf headed a band of steel-clad warriors in 
a midnight attack upon the city of Basle, in which foray a 
nunnery was set on fire. For this Rudolf was excommu- 
nicated by the Pope, a blow at that time from which even a 
king might not recover. To retrieve himself Rudolf 
plunged into a war against the barbarous Prussians, against 
whom the Pope had published a Crusade. Tliis course soon 
changed the papal disposition toward Rudolf, and his ex- 
communication seems to have been revoked ; for he and the 
Pope were soon on good terms. Then he aided the city of 
Strasbourg in a war against their bishop and the city gave 
him an extensive territory and raised a monument to him 
by way of recompense. Rudolf also becoming guardian of 
his niece, only daughter of his younger brother, who died, 
he came thereby into possession of a large domain, including 
the counties of Kyburg, Leutzburg, and Baden. 

His desire for control increased with his possessions. 
Though he would never stoop to ordinary robbery, as was 
the custom of the barons around him, and though he cleared 
the highways of the bandits that infested them, he did at- 
tack and capture various castles. He thus gained a wide 
reputation for justice as well as prowess; and the name of 
Rudolf of Hapsburg became greatly respected, because the 
sole idea of greatness which then dominated the world was 
military strength. He was chosen chief of the moun- 
taineers of Uri, Schweitz and Underwalden ; and made pre- 
fect of the City of Zurich; while the trained bands of the 
mountains and troops of the city were equally ready to do 
his bidding. 



310 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

An alliance of barons was formed to crush him, but he 
overthrew the latter so quickly where their forces met in 
one of the valleys of Zurich, and took one strong castle 
after another so rapidly, that they declared him invincible. 
The haughty Bishop of Basle, whose palace and possessions 
were across the Rhine, and who controlled many barons, 
demanded the withdrawal and submission of Rudolf, not 
dreaming he would dare to cross the river. But, construct- 
ing a bridge of boats, Rudolf crossed the Rhine, put the 
troops of the Bishop to flight, and burned the grain in his 
fields. His Reverence humbly sued for peace, which Rudolf 
granted on terms satisfactory to himself and went into camp 
with his men. 

That night he was awakened by a messenger, who in- 
formed him that he had been elected Emperor of Germany. 

As neither Alphonso nor Ottocar would acknowledge 
Rudolf's election, the latter sent a messenger asking Pope 
Gregory's aid, who pledged his support. This silenced Al- 
phonso, but not Ottocar, who would not even submit to an 
order of the Diet sitting at Augsburg, but insisted that "a 
man excommunicated for burning a convent was unfit for 
Emperor!" 

Ottocar was veteran of many battles, and his possessions 
extended from the borders of Bavaria to Raab in Hungary, 
and from the Adriatic to the Baltic. The German barons 
were not inclined to be loyal to Rudolf, and his following 
as Count of Hapsburg was small. He secured the earnest 
support of the Duke of Slavonia by giving him one of his 
daughters in marriage; the Count of Tyrol's support was 
gained through the marriage of Rudolf's son Albert to his 
daughter Margaret; and by the marriage of his daughter 
Hedrige to Henry's son Otho he gained the active aid of 
Henry of Bavaria, — thus following the ancient royal custom 



GERMANY AND PRUSSIA 211 

of putting one's large family to strategetical and political, as 
well as military, uses. 

Ottocar tried to save Vienna by a forced march through 
the Bohemian mountains, but Rudolf was there before him 
with his army, and the city capitulated (1273). Meanwhile 
the Pope had excommunicated Ottocar, who sued for peace. 
Ottocar was obliged to give up the provinces of Styria, Ca- 
rinthia, Carniola and Windischmark, and take an oath of 
allegiance to the Emperor. Then Rudolf gave another 
daughter in marriage to a son of Ottocar. This oath of 
fealty was taken by Ottocar on the island of Lobau, in the 
Danube, in the presence of his own escort of Bohemian 
nobles and Rudolf's entire army November 26, 1276, after 
which the Pope withdrew his sentence of excommunication. 
But there was one factor Ottocar had not reckoned with — 
his wife, Cunegunda. By her taunts and reproaches she 
forced Ottocar to violate his oath, who refused to execute 
the treaty, imprisoned Rudolf's daughter in a convent, sent 
the Emperor an insulting letter, and made such extensive 
preparations for war that the citizens of Vienna, as well as 
Rudolf himself, became alarmed. Though Rudolf's forces 
v/ere greatly outnumbered, their armies met on the plains 
of Murchfield, August 26, 1278, where a terrific battle en- 
sued, in which Ottocar was slain. Cunegunda submitted, 
and her son. Prince Wenceslaus, married Rudolf's daughter 
Judith, while Rudolf's second son Rudolf married Cune- 
gunda's daughter Agnes. 

Rudolf had three sons and seven daughters, but one son 
was drowned and the second died in 1390, before his only 
child, Johann, was born. Rudolf, though he founded the 
House of Hapsburg in Austria, and though he was called 
Kaiser, was never crowned emperor of Rome. He tried to 
have this ceremony conferred upon his son Albert during 



212 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

his own lifetime, but at the time of Rudolf's death, in July, 
1291, this had not been done. 

The electors made Adolphus of Nassau Rudolf's succes- 
sor, and this led to a war and a great battle near Wirms in 
1298, between him and Albert, where Adolphus was slain 
by Albert, who was then crowned king. Various wars oc- 
curred in his reign and the heroic acts of William Tell, the 
archer of Uri, are supposed to have happened when Albert's 
delegate, Gessler, was governor at Altdorf in Switzerland. 
Albert was assassinated by his nephew, Johann, in 1308. 

At this time Philip of France had forced Pope Clement V 
to live at Avignon, and kept him practically under his con- 
trol. At Philip's command, Clement ordered the German 
electors to choose Charles, Count of Valois, his own brother. 
But the electors refused, nor would they elect another of the 
Hapsburgs. 

They chose Henry VII, who is said to have taken Charle- 
magne, Barbarossa and Frederick II for his models. ' He 
decided to free Italy from French rule, but was forced to 
first look after Bohemia, where Henry of Carinthia, elected 
King in defiance of the late Emperor Albert, had proved a 
cruel tyrant. Henry's son, John, a boy of fourteen, married 
Elizabeth, sister of Wenzel, the last King of Bohemia, and 
the people united to expel the Carinthian, while Henry 
crossed the Alps. This was in the year 1310, and the 
Ghibellines of Italy flocked to his standard, among them the 
poet, Dante, who celebrated Henry in his verse. Unfor- 
tunately, he went into winter quarters at Genoa in 1311, and 
Robert of Naples, taking advantage of his slowness, sent 
an army to Rome. Henry, with but two thousand men, 
marched against him and was defeated, and, while waiting 



GERMANY AND PRUSSIA 213 

for reinforcements, was poisoned by a monk, and died sud- 
denly August 24, 1313. 

Five Ghibelline electors, with John of Luxemburg at their 
head, now chose Louis of Bavaria as king, while the Guelph 
electors chose Frederick the Fair, Duke of Austria. The 
contest was decided by the battle of Muhldorf, near Salz- 
burg (1322), in favor of Louis. As the latter refused to 
appear before the Pope at Avignon, the whole German Em- 
pire was placed under an interdict. This caused Louis to 
proceed to Italy in 1327, where he assumed the iron crown 
at Milan, issued a ban against the King of Naples, and de- 
posed the Pope, placing a Minorite monk in the papal chair 
as Nicholas V and having the latter crown him at Rome. 

The Minorites, a branch of the Franciscans, supported 
Louis, but none of the other orders, and in Frankfort and 
other cities Louis deprived all the clergy who refused to sup- 
port him of their cures. The deposed Pope retaliated by 
excommunicating Louis. 

This did not deter Louis from holding a great diet at 
Reuse, on the Rhine, where the assembled princes declared 
the Roman emperor to be the highest power on earth, and to 
be rightly chosen by the electors of Germany. Louis then, 
as spiritual head, dissolved the marriage of Margaret Maul- 
tasche (wide-mouth), heiress of the Tyrol, with the son of 
King John of Bohemia, and married her to his second son 
Louis. He also made another son Count of Holland. 

Louis was the last emperor to suffer excommunication, 
and in his case the influence of Philip of France and Pope 
John XXn, was potent enough to cause Charles, son of the 
King of Bohemia, to be elected in his place ; shortly after- 
wards Louis died when on a bear hunt. 

The King of France and the Pope now assumed control 
over the new Emperor of Germany. But as a warrior the 



214: WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

latter did not prove very heroic. At the battle of Crecy 
(1346) he was the first to flee, while his blind old father, 
King John, spurred his horse into the thickest of the fight 
and was slain. Edward, the Black Prince, captured his 
shield with its motto, "Ich dien" (I serve), and this has been 
the motto of the Prince of Wales ever since. 

The Roman people, in the absence of the Pope at Avignon, 
rose against the nobility and established a republic, of which 
Cola di Rienzi was elected as Tribune. Charles, in his visit 
to Rome, instead of approving of this liberal movement, as 
Rienzi expected, seized him and gave him over to the Pope. 

Charles is chiefly remembered from his "golden bull," fix- 
ing the number of German electors at seven, three spiritual — 
Mayence, Cologne and Trieves — and four temporal — Bohe- 
mia, Brandenburg, Saxe Wittenberg and the Palatinate of 
the Rhine. 

The son of Charles, Wenceslaus, during his reign (1378- 
1400), took no heed of Italian affairs or Germany's either, 
but kept always in Bohemia. He was a drunkard and a 
cunning lunatic, who committed many murders on slight 
provocation. Count Robert, or Reupert, of the Palatinate, 
did little to redeem the royal authority during his reign 
(1400-1410). An attempt he made in conjunction with 
Leopold II, King of Austria, to force his way through Italy 
to Rome, resulted in a defeat of their armies at Brescia, Leo- 
pold being taken prisoner. Robert returned to the Palatinate 
and died in 1411. This Leopold was the second son of Leo- 
pold I of Austria, who fought the Swiss League at Sem- 
pach, July 9, 1396, and was defeated in the battle in which 
Arnold of Winkelried heroically threw himself against the 
bristling spears and perished. 

Sigismund, chosen king in 1410, was crowned emperor in 
1433. At that time he was Margrave of Brandenburg and 



GERMANY AND PRUSSIA 315 

King of Hungary, and later became King of Bohemia. Dur- 
ing his reign the Hussite wars occurred, John Huss and 
Jerome of Prague being burned alive at the stake (1436). 

With the election of Albert H of Austria, Sigismund's 
son-in-law (1438-39), the Hapsburg line secured the im- 
perial throne again. Albert died the next year and another 
Austrian prince, Frederick, Duke of Styria, was elected. He 
was the last monarch to be crowned emperor at Rome, an 
event which occurred in 1452. From the time of Sigismund, 
when the connection between the empire and Hungary be- 
gan, Germany took on a new character. Only princes of ac- 
knowledged power were now elected, and always from the 
House of Austria. 

The Italian cities, over which the empire was supposed to 
dominate, were coming into prominence, and the political in- 
fluence of the Popes had to be reckoned with. Milan, Venice. 
Pisa, Florence, Genoa and other towns had reigning dukes 
and governments of their own, and sometimes, as in ancient 
Greece, one city controlled another. 

Though the Council of Constance had declared itself su- 
perior to the Popes, this was not conceded by all authorities, 
and the papal influence is regarded as having been quite as 
potent in temporal affairs as the spiritual. Says Freeman : 
"We may look on the Popes as undoubted temporal princes 
of Rome. They were gradually able to bring under their 
power all that part of Italy, stretching from one sea to the 
other, over which they professed to have rights by the grants 
of various kings and emperors. The later Popes of the fif- 
teenth century must be looked on as little more than Italian 
princes, and many of them were among the very worst of 
the Italian princes. Some of them, like Nicholas V, did some 
good by way of encouraging learning, and Pius II, who 
reigned from 1458 to 1464, and who is famous as a writer 



216 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

by his former name of Aenas Silvius, tried, like Gregory X, 
to get the Christian princes to join in a crusade for the de- 
liverance of the East. But Sixtus V and Innocent VIII 
were among the worst of the Popes, thinking of nothing ex- 
cept increasing their temporal power and advancing their 
own families." 

About this time the Turks were becoming the terror of 
Christendom. They had overrun Asia Minor, crossed the 
Hellespont and established themselves firmly in Eurc^pe, 
gaining possession of Bulgaria, Servia, Bosnia and portions 
of Hungary. Ladislaus IV, King of Hungary, was killed in 
an attempt to repel them in 1440. They occupied Adrianople 
in 1361, under the leadership of their Sultan, Amurath, and 
made it the Ottoman capital. Their successes were in a 
measure due to their custom of capturing Christian children 
and bringing them up as soldiers, called Janissaries (new 
soldiers). They were so well trained as to overcome all 
enemies, and it was largely due to the invasion of another 
branch of Mohammedans, the followers of Timour, that 
Europe was relieved of the terror inspired by the chief of the 
Ottoman Turks known as Bojazet the Thunderbolt, who be- 
came their leader in 1389. In 1402 Timour encountered the 
forces of Bajazet in a fierce battle at Angora and took him 
prisoner, thus giving eastern Europe a breathing spell. 

May 29, 1453, Constantinople, capital of the Roman Em- 
pire of the East, which had really been Greek since 1260, 
when it was recovered from the Latins by Michael Paleolo- 
gus, first of the Greek emperors, was taken by the Turks 
under Mahomet II, their first emperor. 

Three bands of Turks, of 10,000 each, overran now the 
states bordering on Hungary and penetrated into Illyria as 
far as the city of Laybach. They burned every village and 
slew the inhabitants. Frederick the emperor, seemed indif- 



GERMANY AND PRUSSIA 217 

ferent to the danger, but the barons of Carniola gathered an 
army of 20,000 men and drove the Turks back to the Bos- 
phorus. The Turks had slain, however, 6,000 Christians and 
taken away 8,000 as captives. A few years later a larger 
army of Turks poured through the defiles of the Illyrian 
mountains like a volcanic fire, and dragged away with them 
20,000 captives, and these incursions were continued. 

The accession of Maximilian I, son of Frederick, in 1493, 
marks a period characterized by at least two tendencies — one 
toward national unity among the people, and another toward 
the reformation of practical abuses in the church. The em- 
pire was divided into ten circles, each forming a union. These 
included Austria, Bavaria, Franconia, Swabia, Upper Rhine, 
Electoral Rhine, Burgundy, Westphalia and Upper and 
Lower Saxony. In this division, Bohemia, Silesia, Mo- 
ravia, Lusatia and Prussia were not included. 

A struggle with France for the possession of Upper Italy 
began. Louis XII of France proposed to Pope Alexander 
VI to give his son, Caesar Borgia, a pension of $2,000 a year 
if the Pope would assist him in getting control of the Italian 
cities ; he also made specious promises to each city. An army 
of 22,000 crossed the Alps in 1499, and. after a few success- 
ful conflicts, captured Milan. Maximilian promised aid, but 
could raise neither money nor men. Duke Ludovico, who 
had escaped from Milan, succeeded in hiring an army of 
10,000 Burgundians and Swiss, with which he drove Louis 
and his followers out of Milan and recovered every fortress 
but one, that of Novarra, held by the Chevalier de Bayard. 
And it should be noted that in that period men of all ranks 
were ready to be hired as fighting men in almost any cause. 

The marriage of Maximilian's son Charles with Joanna of 
Spain brought that kingdom under the Hapsburg line in the 
person of the emperor's grandson, Charles I of Spain, elected 



318 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

Emperor of Germany in 1519 with the name Charles V. 
His military record includes his refusal to arrest Luther at 
Pope Leo X's demand (1520), his first war with France in 
1531, and his second war with France in 1537, in which the 
German army took Rome and burned a part of the city; a 
third French war in 1532, and a fourth French war in 1542. 
In 1535 Charles led an attack of 30,000 men against the 
Turks in Tunis and liberated 22,000 Christians who had been 
languishing in dungeons. He also, with the assistance of 
Alva, defeated the Protestants at the battle of Muhlberg 
(1547). 

It was the danger he incurred from the side of the French 
and of the Turks that served to allay and defer the action of 
Charles against the Protestant princes of Germany. From 
1531 to 1541 the Schmaldaldic League of Protestant Princes 
possessed control in German affairs, and not till 1546 did 
Charles find time to turn upon them and break the power of 
the League, as he did at Muhlberg, where the leaders, John 
Frederick of Saxony, and Philip Landgrave of Hesse, were 
made prisoners. It was in 1550 that Charles convoked a 
commission at Valladolid, Spain, to consider a question 
raised by the theologians, whether war was necessary to a 
saving knowledge of Christ. 

During the reign of Charles' brother, Ferdinand I, and the 
latter's son, Maximilian II (1556-1576), Germany enjoyed 
a period comparatively peaceful, though the Netherlands 
were being drenched with blood, a happening attributed 
largely to Charles' son, Philip II of Spain. Maximilian was 
elected King of Poland in 1575, and died not long after, 
some attributing his demise to poison. 

In 1571 occurred the naval battle of Lepanto. with the 
Turks, in which the combined fleets of Spain, Venice and 



GERMANY AND PRUSSIA 319 

Pius V, under the command of Don John of Austria, prac- 
tically destro3^ed the maritime power of the Turks. 

During the reign of Rudolf II (1576-1612) the Jesuits 
were in control and the Catholic League founded. His suc- 
cessor, Mathias (1612-19), was also guided largely by the 
same influences, and the election of his cousin, Ferdinand, in- 
tensely anti-Prostestant, in 1617, was the signal for the be- 
ginning of the bloody "Thirty Years' War," which depopu- 
lated parts of Germany, prostrated its industries, and reduced 
it to a condition of almost primitive barbarism. 

The battle of Prague in 1620 between the Imperialists and 
the Bohemians, in which the latter were defeated and their 
king, Frederick V, compelled to flee to Holland, ruined the 
Protestant cause in Bohemia. Other famous battles of this 
war include that of Wiesloch, fought in April, 1622, where 
Earnest Von Mansfeld defeated Count de Tilly, German mil- 
itary commander ; the victory of Tilly (1626) over Christian 
IV of Denmark, at Lutter; the surrender of Pomerania to 
Gustavus Adolphus. 1630 ; the battle of Lutzen or Lippstads, 
already referred to (1632) ; the victories of Bernhard over 
the Imperialists at Rheinfeld (1638) and the capture of Alt- 
Breisach (1639); the capture of Arras, Spain (1640); 
Count of Harcourt's victories in Italy (1640-42) ; the bloody 
battle of Nordlingen (1645). in which Mercy was killed, 
and where the Duke of Enghien put to rout the entire im- 
perial army; the defeat of Leopold at Sens, in Artois, by 
Conde (1648); victories of Turenne and the Swedes at 
Lauingen and Zusmarshausen (1648), and the taking of 
Prague by the Swedish general Konigsmark (1648). It is 
estimated that one-half the population of Germany perished 
during this war. Augsburg was reduced from 80,000 to 18,- 
000 people ; Saxony lost 900,000 men in two years, and other 
sections suffered in like ratio. 



220 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

During the reigns of Leopold I (1658-1705), Joseph I 
(1705-11), and Charles VI (1711-40), the aggressions of 
Louis XIV had to be continually opposed by the empire. 
Louis' gold had its influence in the taking over of Strasburg 
by the French in 1680 and the adding of Luxemburg by the 
settlement with Leopold. Leopold's cruelty as well as weak- 
ness was shown later when he put to death a large number 
of Hungarian nobles for conspiracy and sold 250 Lutheran 
ministers as galley slaves on a similar charge. The people 
rebelled and unwisely invoked the assistance of the Turks, 
who entered Hungary with 280,000 men under Kara Musta- 
pha. They advanced to Vienna, but were checked by a small 
army of Hungarians under Tekeli. After two months Count 
Stabrenberg, the commandant, after sending up rockets for 
three days to signal his distress, was on the point of sur- 
rendering, when the Polish king, John Sobuiski, arrived 
with his army and drove the Turks away. 

Leopold did not welcome Sobuiski, and put hundreds of 
the Hungarians to death. Meanwhile the army of Louis 
XIV, sent into the Palatinate to secure that territory for 
France, was treating the inhabitants there with no less 
cruelty. Under General Melac, Worms, Mannheim, Oppen- 
heim, Baden and other towns v/ere burnt and citizens treated 
with merciless brutality. 

The intrigues of France and French agents at this time 
created such alarm in Germany that a diet was held at Ratis- 
bon to prohibit intercourse with France, and an alliance was 
formed with England and Spain against that nation. In 
1692, William III of England, in command of the forces of 
the allies, was defeated at Steinkirk, though he managed to 
conduct a masterly retreat, and the French blew up the Castle 
of Heidelberg by way of revenge. The treaty of Ryswyck 
gave France all its German holdings, except Lorraine, the 



GERMANY AND PRUSSIA 221 

Palatinate, and Philipsburg. In the war of the Spanish Suc- 
cession (1401-14) the German states came into conflict with 
each other. The electors of Cologne and Bavaria sided with 
the Pope, and the Dukes of Saxony and Mantau, in favor of 
Louis' candidate, Philip of Anjou; Hanover, having been 
granted an electoral hat, firmly supported Austria's heir; 
Saxony, though favorable to the emperor, was occupied in a 
struggle with the Poles, and Ferdinand III of Brandenburg 
supported Austria, because of having been granted the title 
of the "King of Prussia." 

The first account that we have of the Hohenzollerns, is to 
the effect that they occupied a castle on the hill of Zollern, in 
Wurtemburg, and the first mention of their name is in the 
closing years of the eleventh century. "Hohen" means 
"high," and "Zollern" mean "taxes." The Hohenzollerns 
belonged to the class of petty independent or quasi indepen- 
dent princes who swarmed in Germany at this period, ac- 
knowledging no superiors and who did what seemed good 
in their own eyes. The principal sources of revenue for these 
robber barons was the plunder of traveling merchants and 
traders who were unfortunate enough to fall into their hands. 

The family comes into prominence in 1415, when Freder- 
ick of Nuremburg secured by purchase from Sigismund. Em- 
peror of Germany, the territory of Brandenburg and became 
Margrave of Brandenburg and elector of the empire, as 
Frederick I. His dominion consisted of 10,000 square miles 
of sandy plain interspersed with fertile districts. It was 
popularly described as "the sand box of the Holy Roman 
Empire." The population was originally sear and rather 
scanty. 

Frederick Wilhelm, or "The Great Elector," succeeded in 
1640. His political and military genius made him an ex- 
ception to the reigning sovereigns of his time. He was sue- 



332 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

cessful in war, in peace and in intrigue. His territory and 
influence were largely augmented by the treaty of West- 
phalia, 1648, at the close of the Thirty Years' War. It was 
the energy and sagacity of the great elector which laid the 
foundation of what afterwards became the kingdom of Prus- 
sia. He owed his success to the almost exclusive personal 
care and attention which he paid to his little army. Ever 
since his day it has been the tradition of the Hohenzollerns 
to give to the army the first consideration. At the death of 
the great elector, Brandenburg was inferior to Austria alone 
among the states of the empire. From 1640 to 1688 its 
area increased to 40,000 square miles, its revenue multiplied 
seven- fold, and its small army was unsurpassed for efficiency. 
Frederick found Brandenburg a constitutional state where 
the legislative power was shared by the Diet with the Elector. 
He left it to his successor substantially an absolute monarchy 
and such Prussia has ever since remained. 

In 1701 Frederick III, son of the Great Elector, put a 
crown on his own head, and Brandenburg became king "in 
Prussia/' as Frederick I. 

He crowned himself because the territory in which he was 
recognized as king did not lie within the bounds of the Holy 
Roman Empire. Prussia bordered on Russia and from 
henceforward there has been mutual jealousy and distrust 
between Prussia and Russia. 

To the above-mentioned king succeeded (1713) Frederick 
Wilhelm I, famed in story for his vulgarity and brutality, the 
father of Frederick the Great. But Frederick William pos- 
sessed executive ability of a high order. He hoarded money 
and had a well filled treasury. As a Hohenzollern. his first 
care was his army. He employed every available plan he 
could conceive of to increase its efficiency. He was the first 
to employ iron ramrods for his muskets, and Prussia has 



GERMANY AND PRUSSIA 22c 



ever since been on the lookout for improvements in arms 
which would make her superior to all her rivals. Frederick 
William I, by husbanding his finances and applying them to 
military purposes, was able to keep on foot one of the largest 
and best trained armies in Europe. It was a veritable "war 
machine." He was an absolute monarch, and his ministers 
were rather clerks for registering his decrees. What was 
known as civil liberty in England was not dreamed of in 
Prussia. Frederick William conquered Pomerania, and, 
Sweden disappearing from the ranks of the Great Powers,' 
Prussia was left without a rival in northern Germany. 

During his reign the revenues of Prussia were doubled 
and he left a treasury of 9,000,000 thalers and an army of 
85,000 men. Though only the twelfth of European states 
in extent of territory and population, Prussia ranked fourth 
in military power. The army was the all in all, and its dis- 
cipline was of the strictest. The maxims of the king were 
money for the army, the army for conquest, conquest for 
expansion, expansion for more money for a greater army, 
for still further expansion. 

These principles of policy were inherited by his son, Fred- 
erick the Great, and have ever since directed the efforts of 
the house of Hohenzollern. Industry and commerce were 
for the most part left to take care of themselves or made 
subsidiary to military purposes. With the same end in view, 
science has been cultivated. Frederick the Great despised 
German literature and surrounded himself with French sa- 
vants. German literature and philosophy grew up entirely 
independent of royal assistance. Kant was silenced and 
Fichte, who was expelled from his chair for his democratic 
learning, was called to Berlin when his help was needed to 
serve the German people against Napoleon. Hegel was 



234 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

called to Berlin because he was an absolutist in politics and 
became a moral police scavenger for the reaction. 

When the Seven Years' War broke out, in 1756, Frederick 
had an army of 150,000 men and a portion of eleven million 
thalers. Of the 850,000 soldiers who perished in this war 
about 180,000 fell while in the service of Prussia. The 
Hohenzollerns have been lavish of the blood of their sub- 
jects. Prussia emerged from this conflict a first-class mili- 
tary power. But the gross population had decreased to the 
extent of half a million souls and the misery and poverty of 
the people were almost incalculable. 

While it is not to be denied that Frederick did many things 
to improve the condition of his people, it remains true that 
the old system of rigid social privilege was still maintained 
and impassable barriers divided the noble from the citizen 
and the citizen from the peasant. And the same relation 
still exists between the Prussian Junker and the bourgeoisie. 
The government was a personal despotism. Breslau was 
ceded to Prussia in 1741, Silesia and Glatz added in 1742, 
and in 1772 Frederick shared in the crime of the division of 
Poland, which had the effect of doubling the area of Prus- 
sia. He died in 1786, having increased his territory to 75,- 
000 square miles, with an annual revenue of 20,000,000 
thalers, and a population of five and a half millions. 

After the settlement in 1815 Prussia played a secondary 
role in foreign politics until Bismarck came to the helm in 
1862. The victory of Prussia over Austria in 1866, and 
the incorporation of Schleswig-Holstein to its own terri- 
tory, left Prussia the undisputed mistress of Germany. In 
1871, as a result of the victory of Germany over France, 
the King of Prussia became German Emperor. 




KAISER WILHELM 

EMPEROK OF GERMANY 



CHAPTER VIII. 

CAUSES OF THIS WAR 

We have completed our survey of the developments in 
Europe as reflected particularly in the military operations 
of the six war centers; namely, the Grecian peninsula, the 
Italian peninsula, and the Roman Empire, the Franco-Iber- 
ian peninsula, the British Isles and the Scandinavian penin- 
sula, Russia, and Germany. We have considered the events 
in these countries mostly as they took place from the earliest 
epochs in history to the period as late as the beginning of 
the twentieth century. We have been confronted with a 
chain of wars succeeding each other in almost dazzling fre- 
quency; we have found countries at war with each other 
and at war with themselves. States like the Roman Empire 
have developed through inherent prowess and conquest of 
other races and states, and have died through internal weak- 
ening and foreign invasion. The circle of events in the 
history of the states seems almost determined; on the one 
hand, increase and expansion through force of innate vital- 
ity and consequent domination of portions of the outside 
world, and on the other, weakening, shrinkage and death, 
through internal corruption and consequent defeat at the 
hands of the aggressor from the outside. In other words, 
states have tended to realize their potency and creative 



226 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

energy in terms of warfare and domination of fellow states, 
and as a result, have been compelled to yield, in their turn, 
to foreign dominion, when their own vital stock began to 
suffer depletion. Athens grew and, while growing, swal- 
lowed up other Greek principalities; but Athens began to 
grow feeble, and, in proportion to the loss of her strength, 
was encroached upon and conquered by new aggressors. 
The nature of the conclusion therefore shows the path of 
the movement, at the start as well as during the whole 
course, to have been crooked, and if nations desire to live 
without having to suffer at the hands of superior neighbors, 
they should give expression to their inner forces through 
channels other than those of aggression, violent conquest, 
and, in general, warfare. Nations should discover channels 
carrying the current in both directions, so to speak, and to 
the enrichment of all the parties concerned, and should en- 
gage in forms of relationship which are symmetrical, as in 
the case of trading, where the benefit of the customer does 
not exclude the benefit of the salesman. But we are an- 
ticipating ourselves, and these reflections properly find their 
place in the concluding chapter. 

Here we may notice that time does not seem to have ef- 
fected any change in the points of view adopted by national 
governments, and that waf fare is a symptom of the working 
of the life of peoples now, just as it has been in more ancient 
times. As an overwhelming evidence of this fact, we have 
the Great European War which has burst into the world- 
stage with the suddenness of a volcanic eruption, and has 
extended its hold upon the larger part of the continent with 
the speed of lightning. There is no doubt that the present 
war is the greatest, most violent, and most far-reaching in 
influence of all conflicts in history, but it is yet going on, 
and therefore, in this book, cannot be treated with any ade- 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR 237 

quacy. Only after the war is finished shall we be enabled 
to see it in the proper perspective. But, because of its im- 
mense importance, the war cannot be simply passed over. 
Hence we will endeavor to present the reader with a picture 
of the events and processes which have anteceded the war, 
and point out their causal connection with the outbreak of 
the conflict. 

The causal antecedents of the Great War may be divided 
into two; on the one hand, general and more distant, and 
on the other, immediate and particular. Under the latter 
head come, of course, the assassination of the Austrian heir 
to the throne and such matter as the diplomatic negotia- 
tions which took place just before the war was declared. 
But the more general antecedents are also the more signifi- 
cant, and it is these which should engage our attention pri- 
marily. Under the latter heading we will include the fol- 
lowing five factors : Franco-German rivalry', Anglo-German 
rivalry, Slav-Teuton rivalry, the growth of the German Em- 
pire, and the Near Eastern question. Let us treat them in 
the order as mentioned. 

(a) The Franco-German rivalry, so far as we are con- 
cerned in this chapter, reduces itself to the bad feeling started 
between the two countries by the cession of Alsace-Lorraine 
to Germany at the conclusion of the war of 1870. Germany 
was then completely victorious over France and practically 
dictated her own tenns. Besides exacting an indemnity of 
a billion francs, she secured for herself possession of the 
provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. While the war was be- 
ing waged Bismarck had declared that Metz and Strassburg 
were necessary for the securing of a defensive frontier for 
Germany, and first he insisted upon taking Bel fort as well, 
but M. Thiers, on behalf of the French government, made 
passionate endeavors to keep the fortress in the possession 



238 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

of France. Bismarck, it appears, was moved and he yielded, 
and France paid the indemnity with less pain, because she 
knew Bel fort had been saved. But Alsace and Lorraine 
were bound to go, and France yielded, despite the vehement 
protests of the inhabitants of the provinces themselves. 

Now, since then, the fact of the incorporation of the said 
provinces into the German Empire has been an extremely 
potent source of ill-will and even hatred on the part of 
France toward Germany. Bismarck claimed that the an- 
nexation was necessary to the ends of peace, but history has 
falsified, signally, the claim. The events have taught very 
clearly that any peace which is secured at the price of the 
denial of the right of nationality, serves but as a breathing 
spell for new wars. To be sure, if we except Metz, Alsace- 
Lorraine did belong at some ancient time to Germany, and 
it was only later acquired by Louis XIV. But the prime 
question as to nationality is the question of the consciousness 
and sentiment of the people. The inhabitants of Alsace- 
Lorraine were French in sentiment and in loyalty, and they 
have kept so through the period of German domination. 
They possessed a national self, and that self was French in 
soul and heart. These sentiments of patriotism to France 
have been but solidified through the contribution in terms of 
blood which the provinces made to France during the times 
of the Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. 

In fact, it is credibly reported that Bismarck himself felt 
qualms of conscience about the wisdom of the annexation, 
but that his fears were overruled by Moltke, who claimed 
that the provinces possessed immense military value for 
Germany. However that may be, it is a fact that since those 
days the French people have felt an ineradicable hatred for, 
and fear of, the power of Germany, and within their hearts 
has rankled deep the intense longing for the day of the 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR 



239 



"revanche" — the day when Germany would be brought to 
account. Since 1870 the mihtary poHcy of France has been 
largely determined with the view of rendering the country 
strong enough to take back her own unto herself. 

Then Started a race in military equipment between France 
and Germany. In 1886 the peace footing of the French 
army was raised to 500,000. At that time, that of Germany 
was 427,000, and she accordingly increased it by the addition 
of 41,000. In 1899 the German peace strength was raised 
to 495,000, and in 1905 to 505,000. In 1912 an Army 
Bill was introduced into the Reichstag providing for further 
addition, and in 1913 another Army Act was passed pro- 
viding for the raising of the peace strength by installments 
to 870,000. Germany justified these measures by citing the 
fact that owing to Turkey's defeat by the Balkans, she had 
lost a possible ally, and that for the same reason Austria 
would be compelled to station a mucji larger army on her 
Balkan frontier to defend against a bigger Servia, so that 
Germany could rely on her ally far less than she did before. 
She also pointed out the fact that Russia, by increasing 
her military equipment, became a more formidable rival than 
ever. France, in reply to the German measures, lowered the 
age-limit for the beginning of service from 21 to 20 and 
extended the term of service from two to three years. 

Meanwhile, the Germans have pursued an extremely dras- 
tic and uncompromising policy toward the annexed prov- 
inces, with the result that the attitude of resistance on the 
part of the inhabitants toward the new government, in- 
stead of abating in force, has, on the contrary, been inten- 
sified. The Germans adopted a policy which aimed to de- 
nationalize the inhabitants, and their ways have been the 
ways of violence. The recent Zabern affair was a typical 
symptom of this state of affairs. Naturally, by way of re- 



230 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

action, the people of the provinces hardened their hearts 
more against their rulers, and things have gone from bad 
to worse. Let it be noted that this situation has had its 
effect upon French opinion. The people in France, upon 
witnessing the brutal treatment meted out to their late 
countrymen, suffered keenly and sharpened their v^eapons 
more hurriedly for the day of opportunity. France wanted 
to be strong in her competition with Germany, and so she 
gravitated, during the years 1891-6, toward Russia, v^rith 
whom she formally concluded a treaty of alliance. And 
now the war is being waged in Flanders, in the annexed 
provinces and in Poland, and the French are everywhere 
proclaiming that the basal condition for the conclusion of 
peace will be the liberation of Alsace-Lorraine from the 
German yoke. 

(b) We secondly take up the question of Anglo-German 
rivalry. This has in the first place expressed itself in the 
German desire for colonial expansion. Let us note that the 
colonial ambitions of Germany are of quite recent origin and 
growth. It was the opinion of Bismarck that colonies 
tended to weaken the forces of the national state, in com- 
pelling her to turn her attention to outside fields where she 
would be drawn into quarrels with other states similarly 
clamoring for possession. Bismarck, on the other hand, en- 
couraged France into embarking on colonial conquests, be- 
cause he was of the opinion that thereby France would be 
involved in troubles with other countries. But, later, Bis- 
marck changed front, and since then Germany has been per- 
sistent in seeking a colonial dominion. Especially when the 
Empire assumed a protectionist regime, in 1879, over-pro- 
duction resulted, and the business people began to clamor 
frantically for foreign markets. But wherever Germany 
might turn her eyes she found herself anticipated in the 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR 331 

game by other states — by France, and especially England. 
Germany felt that she could not put forth the foot of con- 
quest without brushing upon some British possession sedu- 
lously guarded by the British navy. And Germany has re- 
sented the fact that her aggressive movements have been 
automatically blocked by England, and thus has felt ill 
toward her. 

Nevertheless, Germany has to some extent been success- 
ful in her schemes of colonial expansion, and her progress 
has on the other hand bred suspicion in the breast of the 
British. Putting the events in their chronological order, we 
may mention that Germany was allowed to possess territory 
for the first time in Africa in 1885 ; she acquired colonies 
in the Cameroons; from 1884 to 1885 she was occupying 
German New Guinea, and from 1886 to 1890 she was en- 
gaged in taking possession of what is known as German 
East Africa. In 1897 she acquired Kiao-Chau, in China, 
and England, not to be outdone, occupied the port of Wei- 
ha-wei. During the South African war the Kaiser sent his 
famous congratulatory telegram to Kruger (1896) — an in- 
cident which caused much resentment in England. Later, 
when the Germans sent the "Panther" to Agadir, thus os- 
tentatiously proclaiming that France should take Germany's 
wishes into account as concerns the occupation of African 
territory, Lloyd George, the British cabinet minister, made 
a speech declaring that Britain would stand by France and 
help her, if necessary, by drawing the sword. Correspond- 
ingly, this incident provoked much resentment among the 
Germans. 

In the meantime, Germany began to court Turkey, the 
Kaiser visiting the Sultan and proclaiming himself the pro- 
tector of Mohammedans, a role which Britain has claimed 
for herself heretofore. In 1898 the Kaiser visited Jeru- 



232 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

salem, and in 1902 the construction of the Bagdad rail- 
way was authorized by the Sublime Porte — an event which 
has been viewed with growing concern and suspicion on the 
part of British statesmen. The ascendancy of Germany in 
Turkey has provoked a feeling of rivalry on the part of the 
British as well as of the French. Thus, in general, the race 
for colonial possessions has tended to put England and 
Germany at odds with each other, Germany claiming that 
England has completely blocked the way to her realization 
of legitimate and necessary expansion through colonial ac- 
quisition, and England, on her side, fearing that Germany 
is striving to grow in order to strike at her successfully, 
later. 

Parallel with this process has been that of the indus- 
trial expansion of Germany. England and Germany have 
been the foremost states in industrial production, on the 
continent, and the competition between them for the ac- 
quisition of markets has been acute. Since 1879 German 
industrial progress has been very rapid, and in many re- 
spects has tended to supplant the produce of English origin, 
in the universal market. Germany's industrial growth has 
reinforced her demand for colonial expansion and for the 
discovery of markets for her wares, and both movements 
together have been the fundamental reason (according to 
German apologists) for her urgent call for an enlarged navy. 
After all, the race for the development of navies has been 
the chief factor in Anglo-German rivalry, the factor which 
has made Britain extremely suspicious of Germany and 
fearful of loss of her dominion, nay, of her very existence. 
Germany, on her side, has insisted that the navy has been 
a necessity to her side, for the purposes of securing colonies 
and protecting them, on the one hand, and of safeguarding 
her foreign trade, namely, the trade of her industries, on 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR ^33 

the other. But England has refused to accept the expla- 
nation as sufficient and in the increase of the German navy- 
has claimed to perceive a menace to the integrity of her pos- 
sessions. Such words as those of the Kaiser : "Our future 
lies upon the sea," certainly did not tend to allay the mutual 
feeling of suspicion. In 1898 the first German Navy law 
appeared, and since then other modifications have been 
made in the German naval programme with the end of ac- 
celerating the building of warships. But England laid down 
the "two keels to one" programme and later adopted as her 
standard the principle that her navy should be superior by 
sixty per cent to that of any other power ; by strict adher- 
ence to the above she has not let Germany make any real 
headway in the race. Churchill's proposal for a naval holi- 
day was deemed unacceptable by the German Imperial Chan- 
cellor, and so the race has proceeded at full pace and with no 
interruption, the Navy League in Germany urging all the 
while more speed and arousing enthusiasm in the move- 
ment. The rivalry has therefore become more and more 
acute, until it now approaches the breaking point of en- 
durance, and, proportionally, the feeling between the two 
states has assumed a more violently belligerent character. 

(c) Thirdly, we take up Slav-Teuton rivalry. It may 
be remembered that at the outbreak of this war, German 
apologists gave as the supreme justification of their coun- 
try's entrance into the war the danger from encroachment 
by the Russian Bear. They professed to discern in Slavism 
the future terrible foe of Teuton Kultur, — and the branding 
of England as the great enemy of Germany is more of an 
afterthought in the minds of our apologists. Now, this 
state of affairs is really not very old in origin. During the 
Franco-German war of 1870 Russia did nothing to help 
France and assumed the attitude of benevolent neutrality 



234 WAR OR A UNITED WORIvD 

toward Germany. Bismarck was instrumental in the for- 
mation of the Three Emperors' League, of which Germany, 
Austria, and Russia were the members. But Russia was 
decidedly lukewarm when in 1875 the Prussian war party 
prepared to pounce upon France in order to inflict upon her 
a second defeat; in fact, Russia interfered in favor of 
France. This served to cool German feeling toward Rus- 
sia, and in the Berlin Congress Bismarck championed the 
proposal that the San Stephano treaty should be annulled, 
and was thus instrumental in depriving Russia of the spoils 
of her victory over Turkey. This Russia did not forget, 
and since then Slavs and Teutons have drifted farther apart. 
With respect to the Near East, it has been Germany's aim 
to develop a Turkey strong enough to offset the Russian 
impetus to expansion toward the south. Furthermore, the 
Austro-German alliance has schemed and intrigued in the 
Balkans with the end of frustrating all plans of Russia to 
secure a dominating position among her Balkan neighbors. 
On the other hand, Russia has aimed so to increase her 
influence among the Balkan states as to direct the latter to 
resist Teuton aggression. Both parties have encouraged the 
formation of a Balkan confederation whose policy it would 
be to oppose either one of them. When, in 1908, Austria 
formally annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Servia 
found herself almost choked, Russia protested against the 
coup, but Germany at once confronted Russia in "shming 
armor" — in the words of the Kaiser — and Russia had to 
withdraw the protest. But Russia scored a point when, in 
1912, a Balkan League was formed to a great extent under 
her protection and with her advice, — with the Teuton Allies 
kept completely in the dark about the matter. Nevertheless, 
at the close of the first Balkan war, when the influence of 
Russia seemed supreme, Austria persuaded King Ferdinand 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR 235 

of Bulgaria to oppose Serbia's claims of compensation in 
Macedonia and caused the outbreak of the second Balkan 
war, with the result of the dissolution of the Balkan League 
and the giving again to the Teutons of the preponderance 
of influence in the Balkans. Indeed, if Dr. Dillon (see his 
work "The Scrap of Paper") is to be credited, the present 
war originated from incidents of the Teuton-Slav rivalry 
upon the field of the Balkans ; thus, according to Dr. Dillon, 
Austria's intention in sending the well-known ultimatum to 
Serbia in the middle of 1914 was to provoke a war by 
which to crush Serbia, thus to diminish Russia's prestige in 
the Balkans (since Serbia was a protege of Russia) and to 
succeed in compelling the rest of the Balkan States to form 
a coalition for the purpose of resisting the encroachm.ents 
of Russia. 

(d) Fourthly, we may notice German aggressiveness as 
such. The victory of the Germans over the French in 1870, 
and the crowning of the Prussian king as Emperor in Paris, 
gave the Germans a vast impetus to growth in evei"y respect. 
Germany has been making enormous progress so far as the 
amount of her population is concerned. We append the fol- 
lowing figures as to her population (taken from Rose's "The 
Origin of the War," p. 48) : 

1871 41,400,000 of inhabitants 

1890 49,714,000 " 

1900 56,000,000 " 

1913 66,000,000 " 

The increase in population has been accompanied by a 
tremendous outburst of vital energy, which Germany has 
used efficiently in the development of her internal resources 
both in agriculture and in industry. What is much more 
important, all these movements have tended to produce in 
the German people an intensely violent, even chauvinistic, 



236 WAR OR A UNITED W0R1.D 

national consciousness. Germany suddenly felt that she 
had been divinely appointed to perform a great task in the 
world, that she was entrusted with the mission of civilizing" 
the world by implanting her own Kultur in the hearts of all 
the peoples. And so was evolved German "welt-politik." or 
world-policy, pointing to the establishment of a world-em- 
pire with Germany at the head. The symptoms of this ten- 
dency appear first in the movement toward expansion — 
which we have already noted — by the acquisition of colonies. 
Germany's population overflowed her borders and she locked 
for further land to occupy. She turned to China and oc- 
cupied Kiao-Chau; then she turned to South America and 
sent a large number of immigrants to Brazil ; but, owing to 
the Monroe doctrine, she has been unable to convert the com- 
mercial penetration into political possession. At the same 
time, she turned in the direction of Africa, and her move- 
m.ents there brought her into conflict repeatedly with France, 
and, indirectly, with England. When Russia became weak- 
ened by defeat at the hands of Japan Germany raised at 
once the question of the distribution of North African ter- 
ritory and effected the convening of the Algeciras Confer- 
ence in 1900. But her bluff failed and she had to yield to 
compromise. When, in 1911, another conference was called 
at the instigation of Germany for the same purpose, the lat- 
ter was again foiled, owing chiefly to the firm stand taken 
by England in support of France. 

Another symptom of the current of German world-policy 
has been the Pan-German movement, aiming at the "revival 
of German national sentiment all over the earth," and to the 
union of all the people speaking the German language. The 
effect of the realization of this programme would be to en- 
large the German Empire at the expense of Austria and 
Russia. But the supreme expression of "welt-politik" has 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR 337 

been the spirit of militarism which has dominated the hearts 
of the Germans, both of the masses and of the personnel of 
the administration. Heart and soul, the Germans have 
given themselves over to the development of an immense 
military force both on land and on sea, whose end it is to 
render Germany supreme on the continent and, indeed, in 
the whole world. As we have seen, the Reichstag has voted 
on repeated occasions to increase the personnel of the stand- 
ing arm.y, and, moreover, all the resources of the country, 
scientific, technical, and industrial, have been devoted to the 
creation of the completest possible equipments in shape of 
arms, ammunition, aerial fleet, etc. No wonder that the rest 
of the Euro^^ean states became alarmed and began to arm in 
defense. In Germany the military party became supreme, 
and the Navy league raised the cry of naval preponderance. 
The forces of militarism in general became the dominant 
expression of the German spirit and the scientific leaders 
of Germany have indeed declared that militarism furnishes 
the chief bulwark of the culture of their fatherland. To a 
large extent, the present war is due to the extremely aggres- 
sive tactics of the German war-party, which, thirsting for 
glory, and aiming to exalt Germany at the expense of the 
honor and territorial integrity of the other states, hurried 
matters in the fateful days of July and August (1914), and 
precipitated the conflict. 

To the above let us add that this particular direction of 
Germany's world-policy is due to the influence of her uni- 
versities and the counsel of her professors and, particularly, 
her philosophers. Nietzche proclaimed in loud voice the 
independence of interest and expediency from moral con- 
siderations, and asserted that the achievement of power and 
domination is the supreme end of life — ranking higher even 
than the ends of happiness and virtue; that the state is not 



238 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

answerable to the demand of individual conscience, and that 
it may exact unconditional obedience from its members, as- 
serting at the same time (as Hegel also did before him) that 
the state is destined to receive its embodiment pre-eminently 
in the establishment of the German Empire; therefore the 
latter is enjoined to strain its energies to the end of secur- 
ing domination over the rest of the nations. The German 
people fell in love, as it were, with their own Kultur, and 
undertook to propagate it and even compel the other nations 
by force to adopt it. But, humanly speaking, no state has 
the right to force itself or its goods upon other states, and 
the attitude of the German mind, as just expounded, has 
provoked estrangement between Germany, on the one hand, 
and most of the other powers in Europe, on the other; has 
made Germany more violently aggressive in her methods, 
and has inspired the other European states with the feelings 
of apprehension and resentment. 

(e) Fifthly, we will consider the situation as created by 
the exigencies of the Oriental question. The Near East has 
served without interruption during the last half century as 
a hotbed of trouble for Europe. From the beginning, the 
entrance of Turkey into Europe seems to have been a great 
•mistake. Turkey knew only how to conquer, but not how 
to govern, and there were continually complaints and insur- 
rections on the part of her subject peoples. The Oriental 
question has been created by Turkey's assuming control over 
European peoples and owing to her incompetence to control 
them. Continually molested and pricked by rebellions and 
revolutions within her dominion, Turkey has long since en- 
tered into the bedroom as the "sick man of Europe," there 
to await death from day to day. In the meantime, the 
European states began to quarrel among themselves as to 
the inheritance. In fact, they set about seizing the goods 




KING PETER 

OF SERBIA 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR 239 

before their possessor had died, and then they had differ- 
ences as to the apportionment of the goods. The Oriental 
question has consisted in the proMem, (a) of dividing fairly 
the possessions of Turkey among the European powers, and 
(b) of giving to the subject races (Greek, Bulgarian, Ser- 
bian and Montenegrin) their independence or the enjoy- 
ment of security and other rights during their subjection to 
the sovereign state, namely, Turkey. In 1826 Serbia se- 
cured autonomy, while Greece proclaimed her independence 
and secured it through the war of 1821. Russia played an 
important part in the liberation of Bulgaria. When, in 1908, 
Turkey adopted the constitution and a new regime was 
entered upon, Bulgaria proclaimed her complete independ- 
ence of the Sultan and formally annexed Eastern Roumelia 
to the national kingdom. In these various events Europe 
had often participated effectively. A fleet composed of 
English, French, and Russian ships, by defeating a Turkish 
fleet off Navarino, helped Greece to secure her independence. 
In the Congress of Berlin the treaty of San Stephano, con- 
cluded after the defeat of Turkey by Russia, was mutilated 
and radical agreements were adopted with the end of bring- 
ing Turkey to reason. Nevertheless, the work of the Con- 
gress was ineffective because it went only halfway through 
its provisions; Greece was deprived of Epirus and Bulgaria 
was granted autonomy but not independence. Moreover, 
the Congress demanded that reform be instituted in the ad- 
ministration of Macedonia ; the Sultan promised to obey, 
but, as the Congress did not back its demands by force, he 
did nothing actually. The Balkan nations thereupon took the 
matter into their own hands, and organized societies whose 
purpose it was to equip and send insurgent bands into Mace- 
donia to help the people maintain their national rights and 
resist the Turkish yoke. This was one of the causes of 



240 WAR OR A UNITKD WORI,D 

the Greco-Turkish war in 1897, another cause being the 
revolution in Crete, the inhabitants of which desired to unite 
with the independent kingdom of Greece. In this war the 
Greeks were easily defeated by the Turks and forced to pay 
an indemnity. Another war that took place was that be- 
tween Turkey and Italy in 1911, the cause being Italy's de- 
termined policy to take possession of Tripoli, in North 
Africa. This war was continued up to the outbreak of the 
first Balkan war and after, and was concluded by the treaty 
of Lausanne, in which Turkey complied virtually with all of 
Italy's demands. 

We will now consider the Balkan Wars in some detail, in 
their origins and results. The chief cause of the first Balkan 
War was the ill-treatment which the Christians suffered in 
European Turkey at the hands of the governing officials. 
Macedonia, as we have hinted, was terribly mismanaged, but 
the Sultan warded off interference by the European Powers 
by piling promises upon promises for reform. In 1908 the 
Turkish revolution promised to solve the difificulties, but 
after a short inter^-al the Young Turks showed themselves 
to be even more chauvinistic than the Turks of the old re- 
gime. They adopted the policy of the extinction of the na- 
tional sentiment in the consciousness of the subject races and 
the merging of the latter into one homogeneous Turkish 
state. And to enforce this policy the Young Turks began to 
employ the most violent measures. They oppressed the 
peoples and caused their leaders to be assassinated ; the mas- 
sacres at Kotchana and Berane served as the climax, and the 
first Balkan War broke out. The Carnegie Commission thus 
summarizes the causes of the first Balkan War : "First, the 
weakness and want of foresight of Turkey, on the verge of 
dissolution; second, the powerlessness of Europe to impose 
on a constitutional Turkey the reforms which she had sue- 




CONSTANTINE 

OF GKEECE 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR 241 

ceeded in introducing into an absolute Turkey, and third, the 
consciousness of increased strength which alliance gave to 
the Balkan states, each with a national mission before it, 
namely, the protection of the men of its race and religion 
dwelling in Turkey against the Ottomanization policy which 
threatened national existence." 

In March, 1912, Serbia and Bulgaria concluded an offen- 
sive alliance against Turkey, and in May, Greece became a 
party to the same agreement. King Nicholas of Montenegro 
supplied the spark by proclaiming war against Turkey on Oc- 
tober 9 ; on October 13 the allies demanded large concessions 
and Turkey replied by declaring war on the 17th. The events 
of this war, in which Turkey suffered a crushing defeat, may 
be summarized as follows : The Greek army entered Mace- 
donia by the Meluna pass, caused the Turks to retreat at 
Pente-Pighadia and met the Turkish army in a pitched bat- 
tle at Sarantaporon, and defeated it. The Crown Prince 
(now King Constantine XII of Hellenes) entered Veria on 
October 30th, and from there the army took the road to 
Salonika. At Yenije the Turkish army made a de- 
termined stand, but was again defeated, and the way to 
Salonika became now practically open. The city itself sur- 
rendered to the Greek Crown Prince Constantine on Novem- 
ber 8th. In the meantime the Greeks embarked upon a siege 
of the strong fortress of Yanina in Epirus. Here the Turks 
were well fortified and offered stiff resistance under Essad 
Pasha. But after a protracted siege, owing to a clever ruse 
of the Crown Prince and the gallantry of the Greek soldiers, 
Yanina fell on the 5th of March, 1913. Through her navy, 
Greece effected a blockade of Turkish ports, prevented the 
sending of reinforcements from Syria to Thrace by the 
Turkish staff, paralyzed Turkish trade and commerce and 



242 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

occupied all the Aegean Islands except the "Dodekanese," 
which had been previously seized by Italy. 

Bulgaria began the war under brilliant auspices. The Bul- 
garian army at once occupied Mustapha-Pasha near the fron- 
tier, and on the 24th of October captured Kirk-Kilisse after 
inflicting a severe defeat upon the Turkish forces. From 
there the main Bulgarian army moved on to Lules-Burgas, 
where it encountered a Turkish army numbering about 150,- 
000. The battle began on the 29th. and by the evening of 
the 31st the Turks were in disorderly retreat toward Tsch- 
orlu. At Bunat Hissar they suffered a fresh defeat, and 
withdrew as fast as they could to the intrenched lines of 
Tchatalja, where they withstood successfully the onset of the 
Bulgarian troops. The siege of Adrianople which intervened 
furnished a very dramatic episode in the war. The Bul- 
garians began the bombardment of the city the 28th of Oc- 
tober, but they soon recognized that it would be too risky and 
rather unwise to attempt to capture the city at once by storm, 
so they established a close blockade of the city, but without 
abating the intensity of the fighting. An armistice was de- 
clared in the meantime, but with no results, and fighting was 
resumed. Adrianople fell into the hands of Gen. IvanofT 
the 26th of March. 1913. 

The Serbian army entered Macedonia through old Ser- 
bia, and defeated the Turkish forces decisively at Kumanovo. 
Thereupon it proceeded southward and defeated again the 
enemy before Monastir and captured the city. Both Ser- 
bians and Montenegrins invaded Albania of which the for- 
mer captured Durazzo, and the latter, after a very protracted 
and difficult siege, Scutari. But here they were confronted 
by the interests of the Austro-Italian agreement and were 
compelled by the European concert to evacuate both of these 
cities. Let us add that in the meantime they had made good 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR 243 

their hold at Novi Bazar, a sanjak whiph Austria had left to 
Turkey when she annexed the provinces of Bosnia and Her- 
zegovina. 

The Balkan allies met Turkish plenipotentiaries at London 
and signed a treaty of peace, but in the meantime dififerences 
began to crop up among the allies themselves over the divi- 
sion of the spoils. By a previous treaty between Serbia and 
Bulgaria Serbia had agreed not to get any Turkish territory 
beyond the Ochrida-Solema-Vreh line in Macedonia ; never- 
theless, by advancing to Prilip and Monastir she actually did 
cross this line. When Bulgaria demanded observance of the 
conditions of the treaty Serbia demurred, stating that ex- 
ternal circumstances had changed. For one thing, Austria 
and Italy had obstructed Serbia's path toward the sea in the 
Adriatic; Servia therefore was deprived of her legitimate 
spoils and claimed the right to seek compensation elsewhere. 
Secondly, the Bulgarians had not given to the Serbians the 
military aid which the treaty stipulated; on the contrary, it 
was the Serbians who had helped the Bulgarians. Serbia 
thereupon demanded revision of the treaty; Bulgaria re- 
fused, and then procrastinated over proposals to arbitrate 
the question; but the military party hurried matters and on 
June 28th General Savof, of Bulgaria, ordered an attack 
against the Serbians. At the same time Bulgaria was ex- 
tremely dissatisfied with the occupation of Salonika by the 
Greeks, and the Bulgarian general treacherously ordered an 
attack against the Greek army as well, hoping by the sudden- 
ness of the attack to succeed in separating the Greeks from 
the Serbians on the field. The latter at once ordered a coun- 
ter-attack in defense, and the second Balkan war began, in 
which war Bulgaria was punished for her aggressiveness and 
suffered complete defeat. On July 9th the Serbians took 
Radovitch ; on the 14th, Kriva Palanka, and on the 21st they 



244 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

were besieging Vidine. The Greeks, on the other hand, at 
once disarmed and made captive the Bulgarian regiment at 
Salonika, and on June 29th routed, after a three days' battle, 
the Bulgarians at Kukush. They also defeated the enemy at 
Lahana, and secured a junction with the Serbian army; on 
the 9th of July the Greeks occupied Strummitza, captured 
in the meantime the important cities of Kavala, Seres and 
Drama, and by forced marches reached the Bulgarian fron- 
tier at Djouma-3^a (25-30). Turkey, too, seized the opj)or- 
tunit}'^ and advanced into Thrace, reconquered the lost ter- 
ritory, and recaptured Adrianople. On July 11th the Rou- 
manian armiy crossed the Bulgarian frontier and began to 
advance against Sophia. On July 11th Bulgaria appealed to 
Europe for help; on the 21st accepted the demands of Rou- 
mania, and on the 31st negotiations were opened at Bucha- 
rest. A treaty was signed on August 10. by which Bulgaria 
had to yield practically all the fruits of her victory in the 
first war; to Turkey she ceded not only Adrianople. but 
Kirk-Kilisse as well, and to Roumania, who claimed com- 
pensation for her neutrality during the first war, the north- 
eastern corner of the country itself, embracing a population 
of about 300,000. 

So much about the two Balkan wars. How were they con- 
nected, may we ask, with the origin of the present war ? For 
one thing, through the intrigues of Austria, Serbia was again 
shut off from the Adriatic littoral and from the sea. In this 
way the hostility of Serbia was provoked, and agitations be- 
gan for a Pan-Slav movement which naturally was directed 
toward the Slavs in Austria as well as in Serbia. The crea- 
tion of Albania as an independent state supplied another 
fruitful cause of discord. Artificial boundaries were erected 
between Albania and Greece on the one hand, and Albania 
and Serbia on the other. Albania could not keep the peace 




KIX(i FERDINAXD 

OK ROUMANIA 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR 345 

within her own borders, and so an international commission 
was appointed, when Scutari fell, to control the affairs. 
Later a German prince was sent as a ruler, but in a short time 
he had to confess his failure by leaving his kingdom. An- 
other abnormal element in the situation was the reoccupation 
of Thrace by Turkey, and her consequent re-entrance into 
Europe. Turkey had again taken what she could not per- 
manently keep, and she began, as before, to oppress the na- 
tive population. And finally, the dissolution of the Balkan 
League was in a sense a blow to Russian diplomacy and a 
success for Austrian diplomacy. The Czar's appeals to both 
Bulgaria and Serbia that they arbitrate their differences had 
failed of its object, and Austrian counsel had prevailed. 
Again, intrigues on the Balkan soil, carried on by diplomats 
of the neighboring states, were rife. 

Before we proceed to recount the immediate events which 
preceded the outbreak of the Great War, we will make use 
of a few lines to mention the distribution of alliances in Eu- 
rope. The two great factors were the Triple Alliance on the 
one hand, comprising Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy, 
and the Triple Entente on the other, comprising Great Brit- 
ain, France and Russia. How did these alignments come 
about? The Austro-German alliance was formed in 1879 
and Italy entered later (1882). At first Russia was friendly 
with Germany and, as we have seen, was a member of the 
Three Emperors' League of which Germany and Austria 
were the other members. But when in 1875 the Czar sided 
with France in order to shield her from the hostile intentions 
of Germany, and when later, in 1878, in the Congress of Ber- 
lin, Bismarck was an arbiter rather than a champion of Rus- 
sia's claims, the feeling between Russia and Germany quickly 
cooled. A rivalry grew up between Russia and Austria with 
respect to the eastern question, and more particularly with 



246 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

respect to gaining influence and control over the Balkans. 
So Germany and Austria allied themselves in 1879, pledging 
to defend themselves against Russia. The union of Italy 
with the Dual Alliance in 1882 seemed rather unnatural. But 
Italy had quarrels with France as to the distribution of the 
territory in Northern Africa; she felt her interests to be 
threatened, and, conscious of her weakness, sought the help 
of stronger friends. But in allying herself with Austria she 
was forced to crush down all longings for the liberation of 
Italians under the rule of the latter; nevertheless, these long- 
ings have reasserted themselves of late, and Italy has re- 
gained her freedom of action by denouncing the said treaty 
of alliance. 

On the other hand, France felt continually the menace of 
the German invasion, and, looking for aid in self-defense, 
initiated a friendly understanding with Russia, which gradu- 
ally developed into a formal alliance. England in the mean- 
time kept aloof in lonely isolation. She had various differ- 
ences with France which kept the feeling between them cool ; 
France looked askance at the occupation of Egypt by Eng- 
land and indeed expected the latter to vacate Egypt ulti- 
mately, but this England had no intention to do, and in the 
Fashoda incident war was averted only by the yielding of 
France. France and England fortunately found a way out 
of their difficulty about Egypt in 1904. England promised 
not to obstruct French extension in Morocco, and France, 
on her side, recognized the British occupation of Egypt. They 
also settled their old disputes about fishing in Newfound- 
land, also about Siam, the Niger, Madagascar and, in gen- 
eral, about their possessions in West Africa. A little later, 
England found herself approaching closer to Russia, of 
which she had been heretofore suspicious with respect to her 
possession of India. In 1907, England and Russia reached an 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR 247 

agreement as to their interests in Afghanistan, Persia and 
Tibet. The agreements of England with France and with 
Russia, respectively, were quite independent processes, and it 
is wrong to construe these agreements as alliances for com- 
mon action against continental foes. There were, indeed, 
understandings between the military staffs of the three states 
respectively, but these were in no way binding upon the gov- 
ernments of the states, and had no influence upon their gen- 
eral policies. But naturally, when trouble broke out in Eu- 
rope, and Germany with Austria took one side, the Entente 
became converted into an Alliance, though it is again true to 
say, that England felt free to keep out of the war unless her 
interests became imperiled. Nevertheless, a crushing defeat 
of France would have meant unquestionably the aiming of a 
hard blow at England, and the latter could not help coming 
to the aid of France in her opposition to the Teuton Alliance. 
We have so far considered the general and ultimate causes 
of the present war, namely, Anglo-German rivalry, Franco- 
German opposition, Slav-Teuton rivalry, German world-pol- 
icy, and the Eastern question. We will now examine the 
immediate causes of the war, consisting, as they do, in the 
events which immediately preceded its outbreak. Undoubt- 
edly, the assassination of the Austrian heir to the throne, 
Archduke Franz Ferdinand, at Serajevo, by a Serbian pa- 
triot, was the spark which set Europe ablaze. The above 
event took place on the 28th of June. July 23 Austria ad- 
dressed an ultimatum to Serbia demanding a reply within 
twenty- four hours. In the ultimatum Austria claimed that 
Serbia had pursued consistently a policy tending to disinte- 
grate the empire by her attitude of protest against the annex- 
ation of Bosnia and her encouragement of a movement to 
alienate the Slavs in the monarchy from their government. 
Austria demanded that Serbia stop and disavow all propa- 



248 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

ganda tending to the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian 
Monarchy and adopt severe and strict judicial proceedings 
in order to punish the persons who were guilty of the assassi- 
nation of the Archduke, accepting the collaboration of repre- 
sentatives of the Austro-Hungarian government in the inves- 
tigation relative thereto. Serbia at once communicated with 
Russia, and the latter replied that she could not be disinter- 
ested in the matter. Thus, at once the matter lost its local 
character and assumed import for all the powers. There- 
upon, Sir Edward Grey communicated with his various am- 
bassadors in the court of the European powers and proposed 
that the four other powers, not interested directly in the dis- 
cussion, namely, Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain, 
mediate in favor of moderation in Vienna and at St. Peters- 
burg. In the meantime, the Serbian government handed a 
reply to the Dual monarchy practically yielding in all points 
not derogatory to its dignity ; nevertheless, the reply was pro- 
nounced unsatisfactory by the monarchy. Upon this Sir 
Edward Grey proposed that the German, French and Italian 
ambassadors should meet him in conference immediately, in 
order to discover some way out of the complication. But 
Germany did not accept the proposal, stating that it could not 
be consonant to the dignity of a great power to refer to arbi- 
tration a difference which it had with a smaller state. Sir 
Edward Grey replied that if it was a question of the "form 
of the proposal," he would be ready to accept any suggestion 
from the German government. The latter did not reply im- 
mediately, and in the meantime Austria declared war upon 
Serbia (July 28). It was then proposed that direct conver- 
sations be opened between Vienna and St. Petersburg ; also, 
Russia, upon learning of the mobilization in Austria, ordered 
mobilization in four of her southern districts. This move- 
ment was not directed against Germany, but was meant only 




KING ALUERT 

Ol' UELcaUM 



CAUSES OF THIS WAR 249 

as a reply to the Austrian mobilization. On July 31 Aus- 
tria expressed readiness to resume conversations with Rus- 
sia, but Germany intervened and hurried matters. Germany 
threatened to mobilize unless Russia ceased military pre- 
parations. But Austria began to mass troops near her Rus- 
sian frontier, and Russia, confronted with the contingency 
of a war against a great power, ordered a general mobiliza- 
tion. In the meantime, telegraphic communications passed 
between the Kaiser and the Czar, but to no avail, and on July 
31 Germany presented an ultimatum to Russia demanding 
that her mobilization should cease within twenty-four hours, 
and also presented another ultimatum to France asking her 
to define her attitude in the eventuality of war. The French 
government replied on the 1st of August that it would con- 
sult its own interests and on the same day ordered general 
mobilization. Germany, declaring the attitude of Russia un- 
satisfactory, as well as that of France, ordered general mo- 
bilization on August 1 ; on August 2 invaded Luxembourg, 
and on August 4 entered Belgian territory. Previously (July 
31) Sir Edward Grey had asked France and Germany 
whether they would respect Belgian neutrality in case of 
mutual war ; the former had replied she would, but Germany 
was non-committal. On August 3 the latter sent an ultima- 
tum to Belgium demanding that it grant passage to the Ger- 
man troops through its territory. The Belgian King then ap- 
pealed to King George of England, and on the 4th of Au- 
gust England presented an ultimatum to Germany asking 
for assurances respecting the preservation of Belgian neu- 
trality and demanding a reply b^lS o'clock midnight. Ger- 
many made no reply, and Great Britain declared war on Ger- 
many on the same date. As Germany had already declared 
war on Russia on the 1st and on France on the 4th, the con- 
flict thus became general. 



CHAPTER IX. 

PEACE WITH JUSTICE. 

We have now ended our survey of the history of the wars 
throughout Europe. We are aware of the fact that not all 
military campaigns have been included in our survey, but 
we can claim that the large majority of them have received 
attention, and indeed a sufficient amount and proportion on 
the one hand to furnish an idea of the role which war has 
played on the stage of human life in Europe and, on the 
other, to constitute a relatively clear background for an in- 
vestigation into war itself, its nature and effects. Upon 
this last topic we will now enter. 

Just now everyone seems to have made up his mind that 
war is bound to go. It appears to be generally taken as 
granted that war has played its last card and that it has lost. 
Mars, the god of warfare, makes his appearance in such ap- 
palling horror, drenched with so much blood, that every 
would-be worshiper is instantly repelled. Humanity is 
forced to drink now its fill of misery from the goblet of 
war, but, once through, is determined to throw away the 
goblet and dash it into pieces. 

But perhaps the feeling is not absolutely universal. War 
has its advocates on principle, though their voices may not 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 251 

be so loud at the present moment. The masses in Germany 
may be against war, but most of the leaders there are un- 
doubtedly war's pronounced champions. They, along with 
their docile disciples, see glory in war where others discover 
misery; they see justice in war's awards in spite of war's 
apparent brutality ; and morally ennobling influence and ten- 
dency to render the character of the people hardy and virile 
— at least so they claim to see. Where others discover ab- 
solute waste in warfare, they see a process of dispensing 
with the accumulated rubbish of civilization; where others 
see ruthless destruction, they discover a force working for 
the survival of the fittest and best. We need not linger on 
the arguments of this party; Ruskin has voiced the same 
sentiment in eloquent language and German philosophy has 
supplied the theoretical justification of the ideal of militar- 
ism. It is not our purpose to combat this position imme- 
diately ; we may merely remind ourselves that there is always 
something to be said for even the most harmful and wicked 
of human agencies, and wrangles and personal encounters 
in the street between two individuals may claim approval 
upon the same grounds which the militarists adduce in favor 
of war. The said fight calls forth all the men's latent phy- 
sical strength, exercises their muscles, is provoked by each 
one's (true or mistaken) sense of injured dignity, and it 
gives the victory to the strongest — which in Nature's lan- 
guage may mean the fittest. 

But, besides the above, there is another group of thinkers 
who, as against the former, may sincerely deplore war and 
its inevitable effects, yet are thoroughly convinced that hu- 
manity can simply not do without war, not because of lack 
of desire to dispense with war, but because war is, so to 
speak, part and- parcel of the general course of things, and 
that consequently all efforts aiming to prevent the occur- 



252 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

rence of war are necessarily bound to be futile. The views 
of the said party merit serious and considerable attention, 
because they are important, derived from an objective con- 
sideration of facts, and are absolutely unbiased and unin- 
fluenced by motives of passion and interest. 

To take the matter up — our eyes arc directed by this 
party to the spectacle disclosed to us by the investigations 
of Malthus and Darwin; before us is unfolded the view of 
Nature in evolution, whose supreme law is the struggle for 
existence. To live implies to struggle, and to survive means 
to conquer. Development appears to be the result of a pain- 
ful, incessant, and uncompromising combat among individ- 
uals. Each organic unit is the potential and legitimate prey 
of its fellows, and indeed of any other unit. Moreover, the 
fight seems exclusively brutal: physical force is the test of 
ability to survive, and to be fit, as we have already suggested, 
is to be strong. And the law of the jungle is the law of the 
mountain and valley and open field, of the hamlet and of the 
metropolitan city. In other words, struggle, brutal, bloody, 
desperate struggle, is presented as the ultimate and inmost 
law of living things, if not of inanimate things as well. On 
the level of matters human, within the sphere of business, it 
appears as the law of out-and-out competition, and in the 
sphere of the relations of nations it appears in the shape of 
continual, deadly warfare. Thus, war is seen to be in- 
separable from life, and the God of War to be at once the 
God of All. 

In view, then, of this general outlook, serious-minded 
people are led to take a fatalistic attitude toward the ques- 
tion of the prevention of war. Whether we like it or not, 
it is alleged, war must stay always with us. Competition lies 
at the root of all change and development, and, however bru- 
tal, immoral, and depraving be its effects, it is a fact to be 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 253 

faced and acquiesced in. T"he ruthless God is there, and He 
commands and compels worship. 

Such a weltanschaaung, if valid, must surely provide food 
for anxious thought. But we feel stiong misgivings as to 
its tenability. Is the situation really as bad and hopeless as 
portrayed? Is the world inalienably committed to an im- 
moral, inhuman order of Providence? Can it be that Na- 
ture is divided against itself, so that while in man (at least") 
it creates sentiments of altruism, solidarity, and pity, it nev- 
ertheless is essentially ruthless, and endures solely through 
rapacious strife and conquest? As a matter of fact, is com- 
petition in the shape of warfare a necessary element in the 
makeup of organic life? 

Now, this is precisely the point of view from which we 
intend to tackle the question of war. And if after con- 
sideration we conclude that there is no fatal necessity com- 
pelling the waging of war, we will find ourselves breathing 
a freer atmosphere, and feel competent to take a more force- 
ful and practical attitude toward the problem of war. We 
will then ask ourselves what the means are which will en- 
sure its cessation. 

But perhaps we can take our position on a still higher 
point of view. War, whether bad or good, is actually a fac- 
tor in the life of humanity, and questions about war merge 
with questions as to the general good of humanity. In 
other words, looking at things from a more comprehensive 
standpoint, the problem confronting us concerns not war 
directly, but the welfare of the nations and states in general, 
and, incidentally, the place and function of war in this wel- 
fare as analyzed and agreed upon. In other words, our 
first question, thus expanded, takes the following form: 
What is the most desirable and at the same time most prac- 
ticable ideal of the organization of nations and states, — and 



354 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

is war demanded by the exigencies of this ideal ? Our sec- 
ond question will be : What is the best means of realizing 
the ideal as ascertained, and, in case the ideal excludes war, 
what is then the most practical means of exterminating 
war? Our first question is obviously of a theoretical and 
our second question of a practical imf)ort. In effect, we put 
Plato's question to ourselves, and proceed to formulate the 
structure of the ideal quality, ideal in the sense that it is 
both eminently desirable and ultimately practicable — with 
the view of ascertaining at the same time whether within 
this structure war finds a place, either as contingent or as 
necessary. And then we will ask ourselves how we can put 
this ideal to practice, and, in so far as we conclude that the 
conception of the best constitution for humanity, on the one 
hand, and the practice of war, on the other, are mutually 
exclusive, we will consider the means for doing away with 
war in the most efficient and thorough fashion. 

A. 

We begin with the first question. Now, the principle 
must be admitted true that progress is achieved by nature 
through competition, so that the fittest is awarded the 
prize, namely, life itself. To be sure, competition plays a 
very prominent role in the lives of civilized, as well as un- 
civilized, peoples at the present day, constituting the regu- 
lating factor in business and culture. It would be foolish 
to decry competition and to set up an ideal which eliminates 
competition; we know from experience that competition is 
needed to furnish the steam to keep things going ; that com- 
petition, only, prevents individuals and organizations from 
slackening in pace; that by competition the muscles of the 
body and of the soul are hardened and trained. But grant- 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 255 

ing the supremacy of competition, does it follow, as mili- 
tarist philosophy claims it does, that strife is the universal 
law, that the normal state of feeling between the individual 
organisms is hatred as well as mere indifference, and the 
normal attitude of behavior mutual opposition, owing to the 
fact that the good of the one may be secured only at the 
expense of that of the rest? Does granting that competi- 
tion is the unchangeable law of Nature involve the admis- 
sion of the contention that war is necessary — in short, does 
competition imply warfare? Co-operation appears to be 
the rule of Nature, as well, for our civilized life makes use 
of the forces of both competition and co-operation, and even 
among individuals, the grouping of organisms for mutual 
help is practiced and encouraged. Possibly Nature contra- 
dicts itself ; but before accepting this unwelcome conclusion, 
let us carefully examine the nature of competition with the 
end of seeing if it really necessitates the state of warfare 
among individuals and the groups of individuals, and 
whether it thus excludes co-operation. 

I. Now, from the very first we must insist that the field 
of competition is Nature, and the ultimate struggle is waged 
by man against Nature in order that he might secure control 
over her. Not man against man, but man against Nature. 
After all, in the last analysis, man exerts himself, toils and 
struggles in order to realize in fact his right to exist, and 
the goal of his efforts is the assurance of a comfortable liv- 
ing. Now, since Nature is the ultimate environment of life, 
the background of all human activity, the sole storehouse of 
energy and nourishment, it is from Nature that man will 
wrest his living; if man must toil, he toils with Nature, — if 
he must struggle it is against Nature whenever she is stingy 
and unyielding, — if he needs to conquer, it must be Nature, 
whenever she raises her forces of wind and storm and quakes 



25G WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

to resist the onset of the army of humanity. The legitimate 
prey of man, if such there be at all, cannot be his fellow, for 
why indeed should man turn his greedy eyes in the direction 
of the other fellow, who is born obviously naked and bare 
of fortune, instead of turning in the direction of the com- 
mon source of both, to the power of bringing them about 
and providing the food with which their souls and bodies are 
to be nourished — in short, Nature? 

Now, in this struggle, competition does indeed enter as 
between men, but in indirect fashion. Thus, individuals 
compete with each other in their efforts to exploit Nature, 
and the victor is the one who succeeds in making the most 
of her resources. If such be the case, competition does not 
mean, necessarily, a mutual fight between the human groups, 
but is a contest where primarily the adequate provision of 
material for the satisfaction of the vital needs of each con- 
stitutes the test of worth and the prize of achievement. Such 
competition is indirect so far as the individuals are con- 
cerned, because the competition holds directly not of the in- 
dividuals, but of the relation of each individual to a third 
objective, namely. Nature. 

Competition is obviously a process whereby the relative 
w'orth of two or more individuals is made evident. The final 
point of view is that of the relation of the organism to Na- 
ture in general, and not of the organism to another organ- 
ism. Hence, Nature recognizes in fact the worth of the 
peoples in so far as they make the most of her and not in so 
far as they make the most of each other. Thus, mutual 
struggle is not strictly relevant to competition as Nature calls 
for it. An individual or community which succeeds in suck- 
ling enough out of the bosom of Mother Earth, and in com- 
pletely adapting itself to the great environment — such an or- 
ganism proves itself worthy in the eyes of Nature, and as 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 257 

such is adjudged a winner in the universal competition, — 
and another organism which shows signs of weakness in re- 
sponding to the natural stimuli, which squanders instead of 
using, which idles while the others are gathering the har- 
vest, — such an organism is declared wanting and adjudged a 
loser. 

The measure of worth in this competitive struggle is de- 
termined by the fact that an organism, in responding to the 
environment, is simply working to satisfy its vital needs 
and attain the fullest life it can, and the individual who 
succeeds in adjusting himself to the environment will be the 
one to enjoy the fullest life and thus to prove himself the 
fittest to survive. Moreover, the competition is selective, 
in that the nourishment which the individual may wrest from 
the hands of Nature being of a limited amount, given two 
individuals, the fitter among them will run away with all 
he can of the stock and consequently the weaker will not be 
left with nourishment sufficient for his needs, and will hence 
succumb. Also, since the material is not furnished by Na- 
ture spontaneously, and since when extracted from her it is 
in raw shape, the individual must be active and diligent, both 
in securing the material and in converting it into the form 
suitable to make it nourishing. Consequently, the inert and 
indolent fellow will be anticipated and surpassed by the dili- 
gent fellow in the contest to obtain the food. 

In short, the competition for life is like a running race 
where two individuals compete to attain a distant goal ; now, 
the conflict between the two operates in terms of their rela- 
tion to a common object, and is hence indirect, and the prize 
is awarded to the one who proves abler by running the faster. 
If we now grant that the goal and prize of the competition 
is Life, we get the natural competition for survival. From 
this point of view, warfare would mean direct strife between 



358 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

the competitors, and as such is not called for, since in the 
competition which Nature carries out the competitors do not 
fight each other respectively, but both strive with all their 
strength to attain a specific goal. Let us illustrate : 

A and B are two individuals engaged in mutual competi- 
tion; to decide the contest through mutual warfare would 
by analogy imply that A tries to get ahead of B by forcibly 
taking hold of B and keeping him back, or, say, causing B 
to trip and fall and thus to lag behind. 

But this would surely be a wrong way of waging the com- 
petition. The fitness of the competitor in the struggle for 
life is measured not by his capacity to ruin his rival, but by 
his superior attainments in the race to exploit the resources 
of Nature, and the competition is settled not by a direct 
fight between the parties concerned, but in tenns of the dif- 
ference of the relation on the part of each to the environ- 
ment. And the same applies to collections of individuals. 
There is no call by the law of evolution for direct conflict 
among the peoples. The competition may and should oper- 
ate indirectly and the award be made automatically. Here 
we have Germany and England, two rival states. Let Ger- 
many strain her energies and extend her commerce, increase 
her agricultural output and multiply her industrial produce, 
and let England lag behind, and the latter will speedily suc- 
cumb. 

In general, then, a nation may completely surpass another 
in the race for the common goal of adjustment to the en- 
vironment and control of natural forces, and may secure the 
right to live, by actually putting up a speedier pace than its 
rival and in thus outstripping the latter. The alternative 
presented by war is for a nation to attempt to win the race 
by causing injury upon its rival nation, and thus incapacitat- 
ing it as a competitor; such an alternative, if our observa- 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 259 

tions on the nature of competition are correct, is neither 
necessary nor proper, but is rather abnormal. 

To sum up, we have distinguished between a competitive 
struggle, on the one hand, which possesses the character of 
a race, whose prize is life, and which is decided by the fact 
that this or that competitor attains the goal first and thus 
deprives his rival of the prize sought for — and another form 
of competitive struggle on the other hand which consists in 
a direct combat between the parties themselves, each at- 
tempting to injure and ruin his rival and thus remain the 
sole survivor in the race. The first is the natural form of 
competition, and the second, constituting warfare, is un- 
called for. 

II. So far, we have tried to prove — we hope with success 
— that competition does not imply warfare and that, to say 
the least, war and mutual conflict of any form between in- 
dividuals and nations are not necessary elements in the carry- 
ing out of the laws of Nature relative to the struggle of life 
and the elimination of the unfit. Still, it might be insisted 
that though war may not be necessary, it is possibly desir- 
able and hence is employed by Nature. To this proposition 
we return a decided negative. War is not desirable in the 
scheme of natural selection as reflected in the law of com- 
petition, and for the following reasons : 

(a) Warfare works against co-operation, and, as we shall 
have reason to see, co-operation is necessary to the carrying 
out of the unconscious ends of Nature. Warfare implies 
the rupture of relations among the competitors, and destruc- 
tive struggle waged by each against all ; now, given that co- 
operation is useful, that form of competition which entails 
warfare must necessarily be undesirable and be superseded 
by another form which does not exclude competition, 
namely, the one we have been advancing. 



260 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

(b) Warfare promotes waste and destruction. The com- 
petitors fight among themselves and the winner is the sole 
survivor as well. Now, however prodigal Nature may be, 
she never courts waste for its own sake. The propagation 
of life is the end to which she automatically tends, and 
abundance of life is therefore desirable. Consequently, if 
there is a way to carry on competition v^ithout mutual strife 
among the competitors and without consequent destruction 
of life, but indirectly, that way is to be preferred to the 
method which entails destruction and waste. The latter 
must be discarded, and the former — which, as we have 
urged, exists — must be employed instead. 

(c) Tbirdly, and the most important, war does not really 
constitute a fair test of worth and therefore does not min- 
ister in any way to the ends of competition. In other words, 
war not only possesses disadvantages in carrying out the 
ends of competition, but it really does not carry them out 
at all. The reason is, that war is not a reliable and fit test 
for the selection of the fittest, owing to the following causes : 

1. When A and B are running in the race, if A hits B or 
causes B to fall down, then if A forges ahead and arrives 
first at the finish, it will certainly not mean that A was 
actually the better of the two as a runner. Warfare decides 
the issue by eliminating all the competitors except one, and 
thus results in the elimination of the contest itself. 

2. Again, an organism which is highly developed, but 
small in size, may go down under the heavy foot of the big- 
ger organism — a small but civilized and developed nation 
may thus be trampled under foot (as has happened in his- 
tory during the incursions of primitive Asiatics in Europe) 
by hords of brutal savages. Thus, the accidental bringing 
together of large numbers may prove the determining factor 
in the fight, whereas, really such a verdict, as determined by 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 261 

mere numbers, is invalid in the court of appeals of evolving 
Nature. Not only size in numbers, but relative advantage 
in point of brute force as well, may, in direct warfare, deter- 
mine the victory in case one of the combatants is equipped 
with spiritual rather than brutal forces; a burly, brawny 
giant will fight and easily put down or kill a tenderly-built 
woman; nevertheless, a woman may, and does in this in- 
stance, represent a highly evolved organic product. Thus, 
war reverses the verdict of Nature by introducing factors 
such as superiority in numbers and in brute force, which are 
of no overwhelming consequence in the normal working out 
of competition. By the test of Nature, the woman may be 
very fit, in that she is fulfilling her end by propagating life 
and bringing it up properly and may thus be adapting her- 
self to the circumstances more intelligently than the mus- 
cular male. 

3. Or one of the parties may take unfair advantage of 
its rivals, and pounce upon them unawares — e. g., it is 
claimed by the allies, Germany has done as against the mem- 
bers of the Entente, by preparing secretly for years manu- 
facturing arms and equipping herself in all ways, and then 
attacking them at the moment which suited her best. After 
all, the fitness of an individual or a nation is determined in 
relation to its adjustment to Nature, whose product it is and 
by whom it is supported in life, and not by its capacity to 
put down a fellow individual or sister nation through use of 
illegitimate means in a struggle whose outcome depends on 
so many strange- and accidental factors. 

Thus, we conclude that war is not only unnecessary, but 
undesirable as well, as a form of competition; if it exists, 
therefore, it is rather as an abnormality, similar to many 
other evidences of atavism which one discovers abundantly 
in Nature, than as a process tested and approved of and in- 



263 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

corporated into the general scheme. We will try to show 
in the next paragraph that brutal warfare does not take place 
in nature, after all, on so large a scale as many seem to think. 

III. For one thing, the condition of family life prevalent 
among many species of animals is a standing contradiction of 
the view that warfare is all dominant. Especially among the 
vertebrates and particularly among birds, we discover touch- 
ing instances of parental devotion and sacrifice. In such 
cases, the individual exists neither as self-assertive nor as 
exclusive of the others, but as congenial, concerned with the 
welfare of the others, altruistic. Indeed, why fail to men- 
tion man and his condition of life, for is not man the child 
of Nature pre-eminently, the animal par excellence? Well, 
the family life among the members of the human species 
seems to be by far the most generally pervasive of forms of 
grouping. Instances where this relationship is absent exist, 
but they exist as exceptions rather than as in conformity to 
natural usage. The sentiments of pity, self-forgetfulness in 
the remembrance of the other, love, and self-sacrifice are the 
natural prerequisites and outgrowths of the family life. And 
surely it is too much of an insult against our intelligence to 
be told by Nietzche and his followers that hatred and con- 
quest, treading down the weak and improving oneself by 
making stepping stones of the other fellow's corpse, is the 
only or the true order in Nature. By what right may a per- 
son select one out of the two as essential or proper and neg- 
lect the other or brand it as unnatural ? 

Coming to the assertion of Neo-Darwinians that mutual 
struggle and bestial warfare are the governing powers, we 
find in Nature abundant facts illustrating the law of an op- 
posite character, namely, co-operation. Animals go by herds, 
they protect themselves in common, secure their food in com- 
mon, even fight in common; of men, savages, supposedly 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 263 

closest to Nature, live a social life; they go by tribes and 
races ; when they hunt they make groups and go off together. 
Thus, both animals and uncivilized men move on a level 
where not only the individual, but society as well, is a unit ; 
they recognize their good as bound up with that of the rest ; 
they act with the others rather than, or as well as, against 
them. It is not our intention in the least to deny the facts of 
struggle and conflict, but evidently social and co-operative 
life is a fact equally significant. Throughout the course of 
development we find that both these processes prevail — co- 
operation as well as conflict — and it is becoming increasingly 
clear that co-operation is gaining slowly but surely the upper 
hand. Co-operation starts among animals, along with war- 
fare; sometimes it is overshadowed by direct competition, 
sometimes it overshadows it ; it survives on the human level 
and there it gains a new momentum. On the plane of human 
development community-life and community-activity appear 
gradually to supersede individualism and disruption. In the 
sphere of business is this fact, perhaps, most strikingly mani- 
fest, where out of unbridled laissez-faire procedure and un- 
compromising competition of each producer against the rest, 
we have seen and see still evolving a state of affairs in which 
combination dominates the scene, where organization con- 
quers disorganization, and where any one who obstinately re- 
fuses to keep up with the movement inevitably goes to the 
wall. Community institutions replace mere individual out- 
bursts, and concentration in productive action is proved to be 
superior to unorganized output of energy. The days of di- 
rect competition among the parties concerned seem to be 
numbered, and co-operation is coming to its own. Why not 
say, then, that war as well represents a phase of the same or- 
der of things, an initial experiment of Nature which is now 
being discarded for something better, so that if war sud- 



264 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

denly reappears here and there it is the expression of an ata- 
vistic reversion to a state outgrown and superseded ? That 
spirit of co-operation which is coming to infuse all organic 
and human activity, is it not bound to penetrate into the do- 
main of the relations of states and do away with the forces 
of disruption ? If indeed we have read the signs of the times 
aright, the God of militancy is after all made of mortal flesh, 
and modern deities and creative agencies are fast driving 
him out of the Olympian heights of supremacy and do- 
minion. 

To conclude this section, we have argued that from the 
point of view of competition, warfare is neither a necessary 
nor a desirable factor, nor indeed a prevailing process in Na- 
ture. Thus, our ideal, negatively considered, excludes war. 
Positively, we have seen so far that Nature tends to enhance 
the movement toward co-operation among organisms, and 
that particularly among human individuals this movement 
has received a very strong impetus. The view is at once sug- 
gested that co-operation is the most desirable, indeed the 
necessary, form of relationship among individuals. But 
proof must be given of this contention before it is accepted 
as a matter of fact. Our discussion of the processes of Na- 
ture has disclosed that competition, as distinguished from 
violent belligerency, does not exclude co-operation and there- 
fore allows it ; we will now take a step further and proceed 
to make clear why co-operation is positively desirable and 
necessary in the life of individuals and groups of individuals, 
races and nations. 

IV. We may imagine an instance of primitive man who is 
using his wits and laboring in order to secure the means to 
satisfy his natural needs. He is instinctively impelled to self- 
protection and to self-preservation in life. Thus occupied, 
he may at first, upon seeing another man, try to kill the latter 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 265 

in order to seize the stores of food he may possess, but in 
process of time the former learns that a much better way is 
to USE the other fellow instead of eliminating him. Man 
discovers this at the moment in which his eyes are opened to 
the fact that the other fellow is a productive agent as well as 
a consumer, when he realizes that the ends of both are com- 
mon, that both want food and that they can obtain an ampler 
quantity, a superior quality, if they go after it together, than 
if each by himself. Thus the savage finds that the wild beast, 
though more than a match for him when alone, becomes an 
easy prey when with his own prowess he combines the prow- 
ess of his fellows. Throughout human development we find 
this to be the prime lesson learned by man in the course of 
his evolution. To till the soil is a form of exertion and strug- 
gle against Nature, with the end of getting something out of 
her; now, since all kinds of plant life do not grow on the 
same soil, and since one and the same individual cannot labor 
except on a very limited area, if the other soil producing the 
other plant necessary to the one man is to be cultivated, ap- 
peal must be made to the other man. Thus has the principle 
of the division of labor been fundamentally evolved. The 
development of agriculture is the simplest and earliest mani- 
festation of co-operation in a common task of forcible ac- 
quisition from the same vast storehouse. Industry presents 
the same phenomenon of using the other fellow to produce 
what YOU need, and of his using you, to produce what HE 
needs, both working to subdue the same total group of forces, 
ultimately, both striving to conquer the same enemy — the 
elements of Nature which from the human viewpoint are un- 
organized and aimless. In other words, given two individ- 
uals, A and B, having, as they do, the same ultimate aim of 
discovering and producing material with which to satisfy 
their normal needs, it would be folly for A to fight and kill 



26G WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

B, in that B in his turn stands for a creative and constructive 
agency bringing to existence material of which A is in need 
and may use with profit. 

Thus, direct warfare between individuals is not only ab- 
horrent to the moral sensibilities, but unwise and imprudent 
as well, for the reason that in the long run it reacts injuri- 
ously upon both parties concerned, whereas co-operation, on 
the other hand, is useful and necessary in that the needs and 
ends of individuals are similar and may be secured in com- 
mon to the advantage of all, respectively. In a word, to a 
given individual co-operation is beneficial in that the other 
fellow is a productive agent, and can help the given indi- 
vidual to increase the output of the latter. 

To argue further on this point is unnecessary because hu- 
manity seems to have learned this lesson sufficiently in the 
painful school of experience. But unfortunately it is yet far 
from the point of applying this fund of knowledge to the 
level of group and national living. Though individuals have 
agreed to organize to the end of productive activity, nations 
and states have not. Each state seems under the impression 
that all other states are its natural enemies, that their good 
is exclusive of its own, that the more it causes them harm, 
permanent or temporary, the less is itself in danger of de- 
teriorating, and the less it helps them to achieve and create, 
the more it helps itself to secure its own growth. Thus, each 
country is practically scared when it finds that its neighbor 
is on the way to improvement. You feel that your country 
must gain more and more territory at the expense of mine ; I 
rejoice when I see your country defeated and humiliated. 
That man is considered a good patriot who thinks and rea- 
sons in terms of national egotism, whose desires and senti- 
ments have the supremacy of his own country as their ex- 
clusive aim, an aim which in its turn is to be realized by the 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 367 

diminution of the vital energies of the other countries. For 
a patriot to experience joy at the progress made by this or 
that other country is, to say the least, a foolish and super- 
fluous, and at most, a criminal, pastime. Wars are waged 
for purposes of aggrandizement and the whole country ex- 
ults when it succeeds in seizing some territory or wresting 
some other advantage from the hands of the defeated state. 
This perversion has gained ground to such an extent that 
oftentimes to refer to a certain individual as belonging to a 
given nationality is to brand him as morally low or un- 
scrupulous, or incompetent, as if, in individual life, to be 
long-legged or black-haired or dense-whiskered would in- 
volve possession of this or that quality or degree of char- 
acter. Due to the same malicious point of view, a citizen of 
a certain nationality in many cases considers himself and his 
fellow-countrymen as normally superior to the rest, in point 
of morals as well as of intellect, and unconsciously assumes 
an attitude of condescension and even contempt toward most 
of the rest. 

It may be protested that we exaggerate things, that a pa- 
triot hates the enemies of his country, but loves its allies. 
But what difference does this make ? Is not the ally, though 
ostensibly secured for self-defense, really courted for pur- 
poses of aggression against other countries, and is not the 
allied state, then, but a temporary aid in putting out of the 
way the enemy of the present, to become in its own turn the 
next victim when the sinister arm of the alliance has been 
consummated, a potential enemy in fact ? It is admitted gen- 
erally that alliances among states, as contracted nowadays, 
are solely of a political nature, founded not on sincerity but 
on expediency, whose ends are realized in active opposition 
to the welfare and aggrandizement of the states outside the 
alliance. And yet if what we have said of co-operation in 



208 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

relation to the status of individual life is true, is it not a for- 
tiori true of the mutual relations of groups of individuals, of 
societies, of states? We are convinced that the deplorable 
situation, as just exhibited, is the result of entirely wrong 
sentiments and mistaken conceptions. States are meant to 
co-operate in productive activity, in the same way as indi- 
viduals, if they are meant to exist and prosper at all. The 
method of nature in evolution has called from of old for co- 
operation in production, as well as for competition in attain- 
ment. The common needs of life engender a solidarity 
among all nations, not to be broken even though when op- 
posed in action, and increasingly intensifying its hold all the 
while. To deny that solidarity is to close our eyes to fact, to 
actively resist it even when we admit it as a fact, is to work 
against our own ultimate good. The existing situation is a 
matter of false philosophy and of prejudice in thought, and 
a correct philosophy is called for to oust the false. It is the 
bounden duty of nations as well as of individuals to co- 
operate, and there is no demand from the powers that be for 
wars and destructive conflict between people. The law of 
evolution is fundamental, but, as we have seen, that law does 
not exclude co-operation; rather, it calls for it. Evolution 
means change for the better, the fuller, the fitter, and we 
know that it is by co-operating to make the most of the re- 
sources of Nature that the nations can gain in vitality, by co- 
operating to exploit its mineral and agricultural stores, by 
putting their minds together in the invention of practical 
facilities for so doing, by dividing the labor among them- 
selves in accordance with the ability of each nation, by en- 
gaging together in the harnessing of the irrational elements 
outside man and to the yoke of their common interests. The 
nations are faced indeed with a struggle, one that makes de- 
mands upon their latent energies in the utmost degree, but 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 369 

the enemy to be overcome is certainly not any member of 
their own species, but the recalcitrant, inanimate forces about 
them. As for themselves, the nations must combine if they 
are to achieve victory in the fray.* 

Let us reconsider and recapitulate the argument, as thus 
far pursued. War has received advocacy on the supposition 
that it constitutes the agency through which the fitness of an 
individual or community to survive is determined. Thus, 
war is praised as an eminently worthy and proper occupa- 
tion. Moreover, evolution is said to be determined by con- 
flict and selection of the fittest, and, since evolution is a fun- 
damental and necessary law, conflict, as a means to its reali- 
zation, is inevitable. Thus war is necessary as well as de- 
sirable. 

Taking up both of these considerations we denied (I) that 
conflict is necessary for the carrying out of the purpose of 
competition and the achievement of evolution, insisting that 
competition between men is performed indirectly, with rela- 
tion to Nature, as happens in a running contest, without in- 
volving strife directly between the combatants ; therefore, we 
concluded, the passive attitude of acquiescence toward the 
situation of war is not justified. (II) We denied that war- 
fare is desirable at all for the purposes of competition alleg- 
ing (a) that war negates the tendency in the direction of co- 
operation, (b) it entails destruction and waste, and (c) it 
fails to serve as a real test of worth among the competitors 
and as a measure of survival value; therefore, the taking of 
means to resist and get rid of war are justified and called for. 
(Ill) Lastly, we denied that mutual strife is as prevalent as 
it appears, on the level of organic life, and conversely, we in- 
sisted that so far as such strife appears, it constitutes an ab- 

*For fuller discussion of the same topic see author's "A World-City 
of Civilization." 



270 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

normal growth upon the body of Nature, to be fought against 
and exterminated. 

Constructively, we pointed out that co-operative living is 
not excluded by the legitimate form of competition, and in 
fact we found co-operation to be increasingly dominant in 
the various stages of development among organisms. Pro- 
ceeding, we agreed that co-operation is both desirable and 
necessary in so far as the "alter" is a productive agent, and 
his existence and welfare therefore useful to his fellow, 
whether it be a case of a single individual or of a whole 
state, and in so far as co-operation is a means toward en- 
suring and augmenting the productiveness of each and all 
individuals. Furthermore, the actual prevalence of the co- 
operative movement proves that the latter is practicable. 



With the above considerations in mind, our next step 
will be to discuss the nature of co-operation in its character 
of an indispensable element in our ideal of organization 
among individuals and peoples. 

In effect, such co-operation will receive embodiment in 
terms of a federation of all the states in the luorld. This 
conception possesses nothing of the original in it; Mr. Car- 
negie, a number of years ago, proposed in a bold essay, the 
constitution of a United States of Europe. Of course, he 
did not mean to shut the other states out, and it is obvious 
that a federation, to be permanent, solid and beneficial to hu- 
manity as a whole, must embrace all of the existing states 
within its fold. We need not in this chapter enter into all the 
details of the scheme, but successful instances of the carrying 
out of a strictly analogous plan may be noted. Switzerland 
is one and the United States of America is another ; so far as 




ANDREW CARNEGIE 

"THE PEACE MAN " 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 271 

we know, neither of the two has grounds for regretting the 
form of the constitution it has adopted. 

The basic principles in the federation of states will be (a) 
the conservation of the freedom of each state in all of its in- 
ternal affairs, and (b) the assurance of action by each state, 
in unison with all other states, in all matters which affect the 
interests of all states in general and which derive from the 
fabric of their natural inter-relationship. In other words, 
we must be conservative in our procedure to the extent of 
never letting the individual state to be deprived of its inalien- 
able right to be master in its own house over all that is con- 
tained therein, and we must be positively constructive to the 
extent of never letting the organism of humanity degenerate 
down to the level of a state egotism, aiming at the promotion 
of a union of all states, through bonds of legal machinery as 
well as voluntary adjustment, which will constitute an ef- 
fective agency for the service to and the satisfaction of all 
interstate ideals and needs. 

In a general way, the above furnishes an answer to the first 
question which we set to ourselves in the beginning, namely, 
what is the desirable and at once practicable constitution for 
human society and whether war is a necessary element in the 
structure of the constitution ? We will now consider more 
specifically the form which the union of the people will as- 
sume and endeavor to anticipate and put out of our way cer- 
tain objections which may conceivably be raised or indeed 
have been raised against our own exposition of the most de- 
sirable constitution for the regulation of the relationships 
between men. 

V. It will be noticed that the federation as proposed is to 
be a federation of states and may itself be rightly called a 
universal state — "A United World." 

Now, a very strong and highly influential section of 



272 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

thought among English-speaking people, whose views have 
been particularly well expressed by Mr. Lewis Dickenson, 
raises a violent protest against the very principle of the state 
itself, and proposes that the organization of peoples into 
states be eliminated. It says : Look at the German system 
— how it defies the state at the detriment of the free life of 
the individual. The good of the state is regarded as the su- 
preme end of man, and to that good is the individual man 
ruthlessly sacrificed. More specifically, the objection against 
the principle of the state which we uphold runs as follows : 

(a) Within the state system, the freedom of the individu- 
als is shackled, and even destroyed. Man lives surrounded 
by a coil of rigid rules relating to all practices of his life, 
under a machine whose working he may not comprehend, but 
whose direction he blindly binds himself to follow. The ma- 
chine kills the man ; in the vast intricacies and complications 
of the iron organization, no place is left for initiative, no 
soil for noble uprisal and revolt, no demand for the con- 
sciousness of the essentially personal responsibilities. In- 
stead of a society of individuals engaged in voluntary co- 
operation, we have a mass of puppets led, but not leading, 
with all the individual variations crushed into a powder of 
neutral gray. Don't you see (the claim goes on) how true 
this is of the German people to-day ? The state provides not 
only for the material but for the intellectual nourishment of 
the people as well ; it determines their convictions, it tells 
them what to believe as to the origin of the war, and the 
people, obedient to the suggestion, form their views accord- 
ingly. The press is a servile instrument in the hands of the 
government; the press, which, if anything, is the mouth- 
piece par excellence of the common man, of the diligent, 
freely-thinking individual; the press, whose mission, if any- 
thing, is to criticise social and official thought and practice on 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 273 

behalf of the individual. In short, the ideal of the state con- 
tradicts the ideal of the individual; it operates against his 
freedom of action, of thought, of sentiment, of point of view. 
By denying to him the exercise of these, his supreme rights, 
it works ultimately toward the extinction within him of the 
very consciousness of these noble rights. Consequently the 
state subsists and endures as a mechanism which destroys all 
that is distinctive of individuality. 

(b) The second objection to the state as a useful organi- 
zation for the people is based upon the alleged positive harm 
which the organization of the state has caused and causes 
upon humanity in general, and upon the oftentimes immoral 
character of the state activity. The argument runs thus: 
A state necessarily finds its good in opposition to the good of 
the other states, its ambitions involve the humiliation of its 
fellow-states, their weakening or their subjection to itself. 
The history of the life of the states is the history of the al- 
most incessant wars undertaken for no valid reason, but due 
to the fatal opposition between state and state. Judging from 
history, states have served to separate humanity into belliger- 
ent groups, to animate feuds between them, to provoke wars 
among them, and to diminish the vitality of all. 

And then, when it comes to the sense of responsibility, 
states have shown themselves absolutely devoid of a moral 
consciousness. A solemn promise, say, is given, but solely 
with the intention of lulling the other party into unconcern, 
so that the latter may be unprepared when the attack against 
it is launched. 

Diplomacy, (continues our opponent) the mechanism 
which connects state with state, has been a breeding- 
place for conspiracies, fraud, unscrupulous dealings, 
covetous and aggressive scheming; indeed, in the world 
of diplomacy, insincerity and hypocrisy are the great- 



S74 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

est of virtues. Let us therefore do away with diplo- 
macy; let us do away with the governmental machinery 
which it represents, and with the fabric of the state in gen- 
eral. The sphere of economic and industrial life compre- 
hends without exception all the forms of orderly relationship 
among societies. Within this sphere, individuals recognize 
their fellows, not as citizens of this or that state, as either 
enemies or allies of the fatherland, but simply as producers, 
as fellow-livers on this earth, all working out their destinies 
in common. For a German, considered as he is naturally, a 
laborer making his living, an Englishman is another individ- 
ual engaged in the same task, with whom he may trade his 
wares, both making rightful profit of each other. But the 
vesture of the state distorts the mental vision of the German 
as well as of the Englishman, and qua belonging to this or 
that state, they see themselves as potential enemies of each 
other. In other words, organized in terms of the state, the 
people assume rights which never touch their conscious life 
as individuals, as workmen with brawn or brain, and which 
create divisions among them. 

To be more specific, the various European states have or- 
ganized wars against each other, loudly proclaiming that they 
are going into battle solely for ends of self-defense. Yet 
one asks: What has the Russian peasant to fear from the 
Turkish farmer, and was the Austrian citizen plotting 
against the prosperity of the Hindoo laborer ? The individ- 
ual citizens of each state had no reason to suspect evil of each 
other, in fact were in most cases not even aware of the very 
existence of their fellows. Each one worked peacefully in 
the field, or in the shop, or in the factory, and it was a com- 
plete surprise to practically all, to be informed that they 
must rise up in arms in order to defend the fatherland 
against the foe. 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 275 

Or again, a state may often organize aggressive wars to 
the end of gaining territory and increasing the prosperity of 
the commonwealth ; the state, it is claimed, mitst grow, and 
yet it is pointed out by others that there is no relation be- 
tween this state ambition on the one hand, and individual am- 
bition on the other. The individual is in no wise affected if 
his country is enlarged by the addition of territory; he will 
still plod in the same field (in case he returns safe from the 
war) ; he will still continue in pursuit of the self-same oc- 
cupation. 

Moreover, the organism of the state, by thus conceiving 
itself independent of the level of the mere individual, re- 
nounces the group of moral obligations which hold on the 
level of the latter, and determine its conduct solely on the 
score of expediency. 

It thus becomes obvious that the state constitutes an extra 
factor in the life of the individual, which (factor) is a fruit- 
ful source of evil and conflict in that it introduces a whole 
array of new interests and obligations in no wise relating 
themselves to the individual's own conscious life. For the 
sake, then, of re-establishing the moral consciousness on a 
solid pedestal, for the sake of exterminating a fundamental 
cause of feud and wars, the fabric of the state must be 
given up. 

VI. So much for our opponent. His arguments are im- 
portant, but, in our opinion, the majority of them are not 
well-taken, and the conclusions drawn from all are false, re- 
spectively. We may reply to the objections as follows : It 
may have been noticed, perhaps, that we have let the oppo- 
nent of the state argue from the point (a) of the relation 
of the state to the individual, (b) of the relation of the state 
to the other states, urging (a) that the state negates the free- 
dom of the individual, (b) that actually the organization of 



276 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

the state has resulted, whenever employed, in the division of 
humanity into warring groups, in the introduction of new 
alignments among them which tend to provoke armed con- 
flicts between them, in the destruction of their moral fiber, 
and thus in the undermining of the stock of the vital energies 
of humanity. 

Now, both arguments call attention to empirical conse- 
quences of the employment of the organization of the state, 
but they do not prove that these consequences issue there- 
from necessarily. It may be true that throughout the course 
of history the state has tended to crush the individual, that it 
has abused its power and attempted to evade moral respon- 
sibility, and finally that it has created divisions among the 
people, but surely it is foolish to infer from the above that 
the state has forfeited its right to BE at all. Any instru- 
mentality may be put to abuse, but in order that the matter 
be put to rights, it is necessary that the said instrumentality 
be not rejected, but put to right use. An agency may be de- 
clared positively injurious and fit for rejection only when its 
employment results in loss to humanity, necessarily; now, 
that such is the case, no proof has been furnished with re- 
spect to the mechanism of the state. The Scotchman who 
threw away the oranges because they were eatable neither 
as boiled nor as fried, nor as baked, was foolish because he 
did not make the attempt of eating them raw, and are we so 
very sure that we have done our best and our all with the 
state ? 

(a) It is complained that given state-administration the 
freedom of the individual is endangered, but is it not also 
true that given absolute freedom a state of anarchy results, 
which is the negation of freedom itself? And when or- 
ganization of the community is lacking, do not efficiency 
and work reduce themselves to a minimum? And yet hu- 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 377 

manity must work and must achieve, if it is to continue in 
life. Achievement, in a sense, is at once the end and the 
condition of life; it not only constitutes attainment of the 
ideal, but is the prerequisite for that condition which en- 
genders the ideal. For we have seen that in order to pro- 
vide nourishment for our vital needs we must cope against 
Nature and make use of her resources. Now, achievement 
means securing control of Nature so as to render a given 
group of her forces subservient to some vital need. If, 
thus, achievement is granted to be a prime end of life, then 
organization receives complete justification, for organization 
is the fundamental condition for efficiency in achievement. 
Indeed, do let us avoid extremes ; let us avoid making of or- 
ganization the only end, and forgetting the value of freedom 
as a result, but neither should we be hypnotized by the fair 
goddess of liberty into a state where we are oblivious of the 
value and imperative necessity of organization as well. Ger- 
many may be now, as alleged, defying the state — that is one 
extreme, and the individual sufifers accordingly ; the French 
Revolution elevated the individual on the divine pedestal — 
which was another extreme, and the situation became so con- 
fused that liberty played directly into the hands of tyranny. 
An extreme is always bad, whichever direction it takes, but, 
we repeat, no agency should be condemned absolutely be- 
cause it has been used to excess. Moderation is the car- 
dinal virtue, as Aristotle taught, and moderation is neces- 
sary in matching the forces of organization with the forces 
of freedom. The eminently desirable solution is one which 
will secure to the individual an amount of freedom compat- 
ible with his conveniently uniting with his fellows in the exe- 
cution of common tasks. To achieve this is very difficult, 
but not impossible. And though this solution may never 



278 WAR OR A UNITED WORI.D 

be realized completely, it must ever serve as the goal for all 
efforts to secure the welfare of humanity. 

More positively, let us add that organization properly en- 
forced will provide fields of activity and realization to the 
individual, surpassing in wealth those which he owns as 
such, noble ideals coupled with moral force for their at- 
tainment. Organization should be the handmaid of free- 
dom by furnishing the mechanism by which the individual 
may use his freedom to realize his ideals ; both organization 
and freedom are necessary to the highest ends, and, properly 
balanced, they co-operate. The state is the objective ex- 
pression of society thus organized, and reflects to itself the 
uses and prerogatives of organization as mentioned. 

(b) Secondly, it has been complained (A) that states 
have throughout history been causes of dissensions, and 
quarrels among people who otherwise would have followed 
their occupations, respectively, in peace. But, however 
much we may deplore this condition of affairs, we do not 
see our way to concluding that therefore the organization 
of the state must be pronounced wanting and be done away 
with. We repeat : if things are bad, let us make them bet- 
ter — it is only a coward and moral weakling that would shake 
the dust off his feet from a task because that task is difficult 
to perform. Evolution is a slow process and the better is 
ahvays ahead off; states have made a bad beginning, like 
most things human, but our own discussion of means to 
insure co-operation among the peoples is intended to remedy 
this very situation. We have found the consciousness of 
solidarity superseding the merely self -regarding instincts; 
we have found that threads of mutual contact, spiritual as 
well as material, bind all men together, and we need only 
avail ourselves of these agencies, strengthening them all the 
while, in order to secure a victory over the group of cen- 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 279 

trifugal forces. Thus, without committing ourselves to an 
impossible Utopia, we may envisage the day when, through 
the aid of the machinery of federation, wars will be the 
exception rather than the rule, co-operation will be the nor- 
mal kind of behavior and its violation will be an act eliciting 
upon itself condemnation and punishment. 

To the argument that the state, by trampling upon 
ethical consideration, has forfeited its right to exist, we 
reply similarly. International morals are admittedly on a 
lower plane than inter-individual morals. It behooves, 
therefore, all individuals to concentrate their energies upon 
the task of infusing a new and vigorous sense of responsi- 
bility into the stratum of their group-life, and create new 
ethical ideals for their collective action. Surely there is 
nothing to warrant the extremely pessimistic view which 
judges the state as essentially immoral. 

But, it is rejoined, the nation, in becoming a state, invests 
itself with a personality which sets it off from other nations 
similarly vested — with a self, pretending to rights and 
claims opposed to like pretences of the selves of other peo- 
ples. Thus, in essence, the state is a dividing medium, and 
by claiming transcendence of individual life it aims to 
emancipate itself from the moral sanctions of the latter. 

In reply, we must say that the claims of the state to the 
possession of a personality of its own are largely and in 
principle correct. It is wrong to consider the issue from the 
point of view of the individual merely. A collection of in- 
dividuals — a group — entails contingencies not met with in 
the consideration of the units by themselves respectively. A 
society possesses a reality not shared by the individuals sin- 
gly, and embraces a plane of life introducing new features 
and new interests. A society is more than its members re- 
spectively just as a whole is more than its parts as such. The 



280 WAR OR A UxNiTED WORLD 

principle just enunciated, though apparently illogical, is nev- 
ertheless empirically verifiable. The piece of weight which 
disturbs the equilibrium of the two pans of a balance, con- 
sists (say) of a hundred units of weight, but it cannot be 
said that the disturbance, as an efifect, is a resultant of the 
partial weighing down of each unit as such contempora- 
neously, for, given only ninety-nine of these units, the 
scales remain unmoved absolutely. The change of the 
equilibrium, — as Prof. James once pointed out — is not the 
sum of the effects of each of the hundred units, but is a 
single effect caused by the new element introduced by the 
combination of the hundred together. Again, in the realm 
of labor, the work performed by many people working to- 
gether is more in quantity and different in quality from the 
sum of results achieved by as many people working sep- 
arately. So, in general, a society constitutes a new plane 
on which appear new forces and effects. A collection of in- 
dividuals, in other words, may possess and does possess in- 
terests and needs not felt by each individual in the collection, 
and in this sense, it may be said with truth that the com- 
bination of many personalities into a community creates a 
new personality. We may instance as analogous the fact 
that an organism is a collection of a multiplicity of small 
organic units, yet the collective organism lives a ivhole life 
of its own, with its good and demands as such. Hence we 
may once for all agree that a community should not be re- 
duced, in discussion, to the status of its members respec- 
tively, neither should its ends be calculated and ascertained 
in terms of those of its members solely. 

Now, individuals possess rights bearing upon the region 
of their mutual relationship, and the state is but the organi- 
zation of men together in terms of their rights. Hence the 
state is society in one of its aspects, and whatever has been 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 381 

said of society in general applies with equal force to society 
existing as a state. There is nothing artificial or conven- 
tional in the organization of individuals into a state. The 
latter constitutes a stage in the natural evolution of organic 
life, and consequently it implies a lack of historical perspec- 
tive to argue as if states were luxuries within the life of so- 
ciety — external guises entailing abnormal and unnatural sit- 
uations. Of course, man is free to dissolve the state, deny 
the fact of his social nature, and live in rampant individual- 
ism. But he must realize that in so doing he is unmaking 
an achievement of Nature and retracing the steps of evolu- 
tion, in order to return to the regime of pre-human or rather 
pre-civilized life. 

Now, one community is offset from another community 
in so far as each possesses a personality of its own, and so 
is a state from a state, so that a given state may possess 
rights of its own in relation to another state, which do not 
issue from its citizens individually. In such case, the in- 
dividual must simply unite in spirit with the life of the 
community as such in order to appreciate the distinctive end 
for which the fatherland is striving. Nevertheless, (a) 
nothing justifies the state in acknowledging and pursuing a 
good permanently opposed to that of its individual citizens. 
In so far, our opponents are right. It is wrong for the 
state to sever its life from that of its individual members 
and work its own salvation independently of theirs. We 
cannot deny that thus far states have succumbed to the 
temptation, but we cannot agree that consequently the state 
is necessarily doomed to die. The state is real and it pos- 
sesses a good of its own, but that good is realized to the 
fullest extent when founded upon the diligent culture of the 
good of each individual unit in the group. When once this 



283 WAR OR A UNITKD WORI^D 

truth is recognized, the individuals will subsist no longer as 
subjects but as citizens of the state. 

The same truth applies with respect to the relation of the 
state not only to its constituent members but (b) to other 
states as well. Although people organize themselves into a 
variety of communities and states, they do not thereby neces- 
sarily divide themselves from each other by impassable bar- 
riers of hatred and discord. We have already argued the 
matter out, and need not argue again that the states do not 
necessarily repel each other and that their interests are not 
irreconcilable, that, on the contrary, a unity, a federation of 
states, is desirable, and, as in line with the evolving process, 
is within the sphere of possibility. Humanity constitutes, 
as it were, a magnetic field where individuals and communi- 
ties are attracted to each other, and the purpose of the fed- 
eration, as outlined, is precisely the realization of that set 
of conditions which are required in the fulfilment of the 
good of each state. 

We have agreed, so far, that the good of the state essen- 
tially runs counter neither to the good of the individual 
members nor to that of the other states. We must (c) also 
insist that the state should acknowledge moral obligations to 
the fullest. From the fact that society transcends the plane 
of individual life, it does not follow by any means that the 
organism of society is independent of moral considerations. 
The view that the state stands beyond the moral plane, enun- 
ciated by German militarists and their disciples in other 
countries, is fundamentally false. The view may be traced 
in the old tradition v^hich conceives government as theoretic 
and in the maxim that the king is divinely appointed and 
that consequently he can do no wrong. The king is the 
concrete representative of the state, and what is true of the 
former must of course be true of the latter as well. 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 



!83 



Now, humanity has always felt the temptation of defying 
moral authority whenever intoxicated with power. Thus it 
has defended the dictum that "might makes right." But 
does not the individual man himself assume the same atti- 
tude toward the rest of the animal world, from which he 
has evolved and than which he has ascended a step higher, in 
consistently looking at it as a food for his stomach and thus 
judging of the animals' worth by the measure of their rela- 
tion to his own wants, and in determining their right to 
exist by their usefulness to himself, without regard to the 
vital needs of the animals as such, and of their worth to 
themselves? This illustration serves merely to show the 
extent and force of the temptation, but it does not justify 
in the least the actual conditions with respect to the claims 
and conduct of the state. In precisely so far as the state 
is a unit, an organic entity, it sustains relations to its con- 
stituent members and to other similar units, and in these re- 
lationships it necessarily is subject to the demands of right, 
and of the welfare of all the parties involved in the relation- 
ship. The solidarity which subsists as between state and 
state automatically elevates the interstate relationship on 
the height of the moral plane and creates serious obligations 
on behalf of each state to the rest of its fellows. Therefore 
the state has no right, by putting forth the plea of necessity, 
to pit the claims of selfishness against the claims of solidarity 
and moral obligation. Germany's violation of the neutral- 
ity of Belgium, Serbia's complicity in the assassination of 
the Austrian heir to the throne, Russia's and England's ex- 
ploitation of Persia, the unscrupulous conduct of the Roman 
emperors, the immoderate ambitions of Louis XIV and 
Napoleon, all these are glaring instances of application of 
the doctrine that the state dictates right but is not itself sub- 
ject to it. Animals are non-moral agents, but they are ani- 



284 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

mals, and to rise beyond morals is to fall to the level of the 
brute; to evolve higher and higher is to penetrate further 
and further into the field of moral considerations. To un- 
derstand the situation in this light is to realize that a prime 
task of humanity is the creation of a moral consciousness of 
the state, in other words, the moralization of the state, in 
order that in the future its actions may be determined in 
accordance with the demands of duty and the sense of right 
and wrong. 

Thus, we complete our discussion of the validity of the 
concept of the state, and we may summarize as follows : — 
Against our plan to organize humanity in terms of a feder- 
ation of all states it has been protested that the units of the 
federation should not be states, for states have proved in- 
jurious to the best interest of humanity, as follows : I. States 
have tended to crush the individual and his freedom. II. 
They have sowed dissensions among men and violated all 
moral considerations, by setting up fictitious claims to goods 
of their own and pretences to emancipation from individual 
needs and usages. Consequently humanity must dispense 
with the organization of the state. Against this position we 
have argued as follows: (I) Society in a sense possesses an 
indefinable personality of its own, not reducible to a mere 
sum of individual personalities — therefore its good and in- 
terests are not completely calculable on the basis of the in- 
terests of its members taken severally. ( II ) The state is a 
particular embodiment of the social personality, with re- 
spect to the mutual relationship of its members in terms of 
their natural rights, and as such the state is a normal product 
in the evolution of society. Therefore, the state stands for 
a reality as such and constitutes an organism which must be 
recognized and dealt with in all discussion as to the co-or- 
dination of the forces of humanity, a reality which cannot 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 285 

be ignored, treated as a mere convention or tossed lightly 
aside as if it were an abnormal phenomenon. (Ill) We fur- 
ther suggested that in pronouncing judgment the state should 
not be condemned per se, on the basis of ill consequences 
which may have resulted from its employment, unless such 
consequences have issued from its very nature and are es- 
sential to it. After careful consideration, we concluded that 
the defects in the employment of the organization of the 
state are due to the fact that the state is yet in the early 
stages of its evolution, and hence that such defects are acci- 
dental and not permanently bound to it; that (IV) a state, 
instead of necessarily opposing the liberty of its members, 
on the contrary should tend to conserve it and furnish a soil 
for its effective use; that (V) the good of the state, (a) in- 
stead of being opposed to the good of its members, on the 
contrary is fulfilled most perfectly when embracing the ful- 
fillment of all individual goods ; that the same interest of the 
state (b) instead of being exclusive of the interests of the 
other states, receives its satisfaction through the medium of 
a common satisfaction of the interests of all states, and that 
consequently, not divisions and war, but co-operation and 
federation make up the natural atmosphere from which the 
state may draw nourishment (VI) ; finally, that the state, in 
so far as it sustains relation with other organic units, in- 
dividuals as well as states, — all of which are bound by bonds 
of solidarity with each other — the state, we say, comes un- 
der the sway of the moral imperative, and is under the ob- 
ligation to regulate its acts in accordance with moral stand- 
ards. In so far as the state has failed to keep true to its 
own ideal thus analyzed, it has wandered of¥ the narrow 
path, and must be guided back into wisdom. 

3. We have agreed after laborious discussion that the 
units of our federation must be states, and we have laid 



286 WAR OR A UNITED WORI.D 

down the two conditions that (a) the state should not 
actively or passively oppose the good of its members, and 
(b) that the state should be a moral agent. A third condi- 
tion is that the members of the society embodied in the state 
should all be of the same nationality; in other words, that 
the dividing lines between states should run parallel with 
those of nationality. No nation should be made or kept 
subject to another nation ; any given nation's rights are equal 
to the right of any other given nation, and no one nation has 
the right to pry into the private affairs of another. All na- 
tions must be awarded a co-ordinate ranking in the general 
federation, for otherwise the union can lay no claim to per- 
manency and to immunity from germs of war. A nation 
feels to its very core its right to be free in the world of its 
own affairs, and will without doubt fight, if deprived of the 
enjoyment of that right, until it secures possession of its 
freedom. War is indeed right when it is the only alterna- 
tive to slavery, and war is unavoidable in a situation which 
involves the subjection of one nation to another. Conse- 
quently, to prevent war, we must eliminate the said situa- 
tion. Now, as our federation is intended to form an or- 
ganization from which war will be excluded, the union must 
respect the rights of each nation to freedom, and must be 
established on the basis of "one nation, one unit," or at 
least, in case one state embraces more than one nation, as in 
Switzerland, all nations in that state must enjoy equal rights 
with respect to each other. The grounds on which this con- 
dition is based are (I) considerations of right, as we have 
just seen, (II) considerations of expediency. With respect 
to both we may add that the principle of domination has 
been tried throughout history as a means of organizing na- 
tions into a unity, but there is no doubt that the verdict is 
against it, because (a) domination is immoral, in that it in- 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 287 

volves violation of the rights of the subject nation, and (b) 
an organization in terms of domination is unstable and is 
destined to die, for the reason that the subject nation will 
one day reassert its right and will overturn the dominant 
nation. Turkey, a few centuries ago, was an immense em- 
pire embracing many different peoples under its sway. 
Nowadays, it has shrunk into a mere fraction of its former 
size and is in imminent danger of going out of existence. 
The system of Imperialism bears within itself the seeds of 
decay. 

These considerations are especially pertinent in view of 
the situation created by the Great War. That peace will be 
an illusory and fugitive peace which will set its seal on the 
apportionment of this and that people as prizes to the vic- 
tor. The custom of regarding persons as property dates 
from the epoch of our savage ancestors. Now, it is fast 
dying out before the active assertion by the individual of 
his inalienable right to freedom. The custom of reducing 
groups of persons into property is a similarly savage cus- 
tom, but, unfortunately, has not yet died out. But it is be- 
ginning to expire, and it will die completely when the truth 
has been fully realized that no spiritual unit may be pos- 
sessed, exploited, or deprived of authority over its own 
actions, and that humanity's only legitimate possession is 
the collection of forces of Nature outside and about it. We 
therefore definitely provide against union through domina- 
tion and stand for organisation in terms of equal rights for 
all nations. Federation in such fashion may claim approval 
not only on the negative ground that no member of the 
group will be provided with cause to complain on the score 
of curtailment or deprivation of rights, but on the positive 
ground as well that the federation will endow each nation 
with a wide field for self-development by making available 



288 WAR OR A UNITED VVORl.D 

for its use the machinery of an all-pervasive co-operative 
activity. 

I. But at this juncture we are met with protests from a 
different quarter, namely, the group of people consisting of 
the advocates of cosmopolitanism. By this party, stress is 
laid on the historical fact that the division of humanity into 
different races has been a fruitful source of wars and dis- 
sensions in general, and it is argued, as a result, that human- 
ity should take means to transcend the variations of na- 
tionality and unite itself into one comprehensive society. 
"My country is the whole world, and my nation is human- 
ity" — so runs their slogan. Now, to start with, we must dis- 
tinguish this view from the other, already discussed, which 
maintains that the component groups of humanity should be 
organized on a basis other than the fabric of the state. The 
latter enters no protest against the fact of the multiplicity 
of nations, but opposes their organization into states; the 
doctrine of cosmopolitanism, on the other hand, approves of 
the state, but not of the variety of the nations; in sum, it 
demands the constitution of all members of humanity under 
an all-embracing state, where "there is neither Jew nor 
Greek, there is neither bond nor free." Such an ideal pos- 
sesses undoubtedly many attractions for the pacificist and 
indeed for any genuine altruist. One who senses one's 
solidarity with all others feels profoundly dissatisfied with 
that spirit of nationality which directs the sentiment of pa- 
triotism to one's own country only, preventing the attach- 
ment of loyalty to nations other than one's own. Neverthe- 
less, we feel that cosmopolitanism is neither a desirable nor 
a practicable ideal. 

II. (a) As to the evils of nationality, we agree that they 
are serious, but not such as to justify a final decision pro 
or con. Variety of nations implies the fact of distinction. 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 289 

but not necessarily opposition. Differences exist, but dif- 
ferences are not divisions, much less need they cause mutual 
repulsion. Such patriotism which demands hatred of for- 
eign countries is a bad and unworthy sentiment. But pa- 
triotism need not be egotistic; if, thus far, it has tended to 
be exclusive in spirit, education is called for to train people 
to feel such a love toward their own countries, respectively, 
as will not entail ignorance of, indifference to, or hatred of, 
other countries. In other words, there is no warrant for 
condemning nationalism in principle for the abuse for which 
it has been made a tool. There is undeniably the possibility 
of a morally higher and more comprehensive spirit of na- 
tionalism, to which humanity should aspire. 

(b) The ideal of unity in homogeneity is absolutely un- 
satisfactory; variety is necessary as well as unity. The 
spirit of nationality expresses the individuality of the group, 
and individuality means difference because it means origi- 
nality. This world would surely be a humdrum sort of a 
habitation if all men had been completely similar in physi- 
cal appearance and in point of mental traits. It would 
moreover lose not only its charm, but most of its efficiency 
as well. So, each nation, by preserving its individual iden- 
tity, contributes something all its own, something original, 
something which cannot be otherwise brought about, to the 
common stock. The federation of humanity, by letting each 
nation give its own individual mite, will be the richer in 
capital and in profits, and the unity thus achieved will be 
analogous to a visual harmony of all the different colors, in 
contrast to the neutral homogeneity of the simple grey. 

(c) With respect to the position that the sentiment of 
loyalty should be directed to humanity as a whole instead of 
to each country we point out that as a matter of psychologi- 
cal necessity an emotion loses its force if spread out and 



290 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

directed on too broad and vague an object. A sentiment 
must be concentrated in order that it be strong, and its ob- 
ject must be consequently concrete and individual. I. The 
natural group therefore is called upon to serve precisely as 
a lens to focalize man's sentiment of loyalty to all human 
beings, so that one may love all humanity in loving one's 
own nation. II. From the moral point of view, the rock 
of solidarity upon which the fabric of humanity is founded 
must receive support from pillars not of individuals as such, 
but of groups of individuals, i. e., of nations. III. The 
same arrangement of division in groups assures more effi- 
ciency in action. A collection of individuals, to be effective, 
must be appropriately small in numbers, in order to facili- 
tate exchange and in general mutual communications be- 
tween the members. Humanity can pursue the satisfaction 
of its ideal needs only by subdividing itself into collective 
units each of which will concentrate its energies upon a con- 
crete task and labor to execute it. Patriotism is indeed an 
immense force which must not be shackled or killed, but be 
reformed and directed into right channels ; through patriot- 
ism to his country, an individual is led even to sacrifice his 
life for the good of his own nation, and indirectly for the 
good of humanity. 

The above considerations, namely, (a) that nationality is 
not necessarily a disruptive force, neither patriotism a sel- 
fish sentiment; (b) that the multiplicity of nationalities in- 
troduces the useful elements of variety and individuality 
into the make up of humanity; (c) that nationality does not 
break human solidarity, but, on the contrary, expresses it in 
a particular fashion, and (d) that the distribution of people 
into nationalities contributes to concentrate and crystallize 
the disposition of each individual to serve humanity, and 
helps to increase the measure of efficiency in the realization 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 291 

of this service — the above considerations we repeat, lead to 
the conclusion that the elimination of nationality as a factor 
in human life is undesirable. The following and final con- 
sideration is intended to show that the project of the elimi- 
nation of nationality is impracticable as well ; that, in other 
words, the doctrine of cosmopolitanism inevitably breaks to 
pieces on the hard rock of the natural instincts. 

III. At no time has the spirit of nationality asserted itself 
in more vigorous manner than at the present. The joining 
of the individual's fortune with the fortunes of a given group 
happens instinctively and not conventionally. The bond of 
nationality is a fact which must be reckoned with as a force 
to be brought under useful control, and any project to de- 
stroy it by violence seems destined to fail. And further, it 
is an admitted fact that considerations of geography are fun- 
damental in the shaping of the traits and features of man. 
Now, owing to the difference of climatic and topographic 
conditions upon the surface of the earth, men are naturally 
differentiated into tribal and racial groups, each with its own 
special characteristics traceable in their origin, respectively, 
to the peculiarity of the geography of their habitation. Now, 
race is the chief, though not the sole, constituent factor in 
nationality, and consequently, since these geographical dif- 
ferences in the soil and climate can never be obliterated to 
any appreciable extent, distinction into national groups seems 
to be a natural and unavoidable process. Thus, from both 
of the above points of view, it becomes evident that the ideal 
of cosmopolitanism, or of the abolition of nationality, can- 
not be realized. 

4. We stand therefore approved, by ourselves, at least, and 
by our readers, we hope, as to our initial position that the 
state-unit will be conserved in the federation, and that the 
state will be organized on the basis of nationality. We will 



292 WAR OR A UXITED WORLD 

now consider how the federation will serve to prevent the 
occurrence of wars, an event which we have concluded is un- 
necessary and undesirable, and how, if wars arise, the federa- 
tion will deal with them. We have urged that the federation 
will embody the ideal of co-operation as against the ideal of 
mutual conflict, but an ideal, we must remember, is not iden- 
tical with an attainment, and there will always be a falling 
short of the ideal, to a varying extent. Organization will be 
the rule and recognition of the rights of the other states the 
normal attitude, but the condition of war will not be excluded 
as a possibility or as a fact; nevertheless, the occurrence of 
war will be within the bounds of expectation solely as an 
exception, a violation of the accepted custom and of the pre- 
scribed law. Hence the establishment of federation, al- 
though not implying necessarily the cessation of war, will 
mean making of it an abnormal occurrence, from the legal 
as well as from the purely natural point of view, to be dealt 
with as it arises. What, then, will be the attitude of the fed- 
eration toward the problem of war; how, we repeat, will it 
aim to prevent its occurrence ? 

(a) The machinery of federation will be objectified 
through a legislative assembly, a judicial tribunal, and an 
executive body, the personnel of all of which will possess 
an international character. Now, war, to a large extent, 
arises as a protest against injustice, but the federation, be- 
cause of its transcendence of strictly national bonds, will be 
enabled to treat all states fairly and impartially. The gov- 
erning assemblies will, it is presumed, owing to their inter- 
national character, give attention to the needs of each state 
in the union, and as far as is humanly possibly endeavor to 
satisfy the legitimate demands of each state and prevent the 
exploitation of one state by another, (b) Through its rep- 
resentative legislative assembly, in particular, the federation 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 293 

will labor toward the creation of a comprehensive system of 
law relating to the mutual adjustment of the rights of all 
states, and bearing in general on all interstate situations, so 
as to anticipate any difficulty which might arise between 
states or indicate by anticipation the method of its solution, 
(c) A fruitful cause of wars and desire for wars at the 
present is admittedly the fact that each state is armed to its 
very teeth with appropriate tools of defense and offense, so 
that, the instrument being ready and fit, the disposition to 
put the instrument to use is fanned and intensified. The 
tool runs away, so to speak, with the hand which uses it, and 
the state becomes hypnotized by the size and strength of its 
armaments into a mental state which compels it to provoke 
a situation in which the armaments may be employed as in- 
tended. Moreover, given that one state is more strongly 
armed than another state, the former will always be tempted 
to attack the latter with aggressive purposes. Now, in the 
Union of the States, as planned, no individual state will be 
permitted to equip itself with either an army or a navy. The 
state will, of course, possess its own police force for the pur- 
|X)se of maintaining order within its borders, but not any 
armed force whose field of operation may lie outside the bor- 
ders of the state itself, in the sphere of its relations with oth- 
er states. For, obviously, this sphere of the relations among 
states is an interstate affair and a matter to be controlled and 
regulated by the Federal authorities. In acknowledgment 
of the same principle, under the present system of govern- 
ment, individuals within a state are forbidden to carry arms 
on their persons, respectively, as instruments of offense or 
defense, and it is the state itself which is expected to deal 
with the situation relatively to the adjustment of the rights 
of one with the rights of other individuals. Now, since sim- 
ilarly, offense and defense, when the parties concerned are 



294 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

states, are affairs exceeding the jurisdiction of the individual 
state as such, the authority and agency to deal with the situ- 
ation will be taken out of the hands of the latter, and be 
vested in those of the general union. In this way, a particu- 
lar cause of war, consisting in the intoxication of the state by 
the possession of excessive armaments, will be eliminated, 
(d) The creation of law does not as such insure its own en- 
forcement, and, no matter how many possible pretexts for 
engaging in warfare are done away with, the states will in all 
probability be apt, oftentimes, to trample on each other's 
rights, and thus create situations where vigorous action by 
the Federal authorities will be necessary. Under this head- 
ing, therefore, we will consider punative measures for the 
prevention of war, which will aim more specifically to both 
prevent the occurrence of war at all and to bring war to a 
stop when it has once begun. To this purpose, the govern- 
ment of the federation will maintain a judicial tribunal 
which will judge between all states among whom differences 
may arise, and, when an actual offense has been committed 
against the law, will cause punishment to be administered to 
the offender. 

The instruments of punishment will be twofold — economic 
pressure and the use of armed force. The former will con- 
sist in the maintenance of a commercial boycott against the 
offending state, enforced, if necessary, by the establishment 
of a blockade by the sea, and the placing of an adequate force 
of frontier guards on land, the prohibition of the granting of 
any credit to the state in its financial transactions, and in 
general cutting off of all business on the part of the rest with 
the said state. The use of armed force will be effected when- 
ever occasion arises by the sending of a sufficient portion of 
the Federal army or navy or both to the precincts of the of- 
fending state and by threatening to compel the latter to com- 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 395 

ply with law by force. If the state refuses to yield, the mil- 
itary force will invade the state and take all necessary meas- 
ures until the state agrees to subject itself to the Federal au- 
thority and comply with the rulings of the judicial tribunal. 
At this point we are confronted with a vehement protest 
issuing from the party of extreme pacificists, to the effect 
that our remedial measures are half or no measures and that 
we foolishly propose to end war by adding more to it, and 
that though armed force has been decried as the bane of hu- 
manity, such force is still suggested for employment. To 
this we reply (a) that we decidedly do not propose to end 
war through war. The use of armed force constitutes war 
when, and only when, the parties engaged in using the force 
are individual states settling their quarrels among them- 
selves; but when force is used by an independent organiza- 
tion for the purpose of the administration of justice such use 
constitutes not warfare, but punishment. Once the federa- 
tion is established, any actual offense committed will be di- 
rected not against this or that state, but against the Federal 
law; there will be a case not of a state defending itself, but 
of the law putting itself to rights. In other words, war as an 
armed conflict occurs in a situation anteceding the establish- 
ment of law, a situation where the relation between the states 
is personal, so to speak, and arbitrary, and where the force is 
used in the ends of revenge for a wrong inflicted, or of the 
satisfaction of aggressive instincts; but where once the do- 
main of the relation between states is recognized officially as 
constituting a sphere of law and where once the task of re- 
establishing the disturbed equilibrium between the states is 
taken out of the hands of the parties immediately concerned 
and made the business of an independent mechanism acting 
as the instrument of the law, there and then, we repeat, war 



296 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

is put out of court and we have to do with merely judicial 
settlements. 

(b) The objection, secondly, takes the form of a protest 
against any recognition whatever of force as an instrument 
in the hands of law. Here we have to do with extreme paci- 
ficists, like, e. g., W. J. Bryan, who, it may be remembered, 
has criticized in public speech the proposal of eminent states- 
men like William Taft and Theodore Roosevelt to limit arm- 
aments as to size but not to dispense with their use altogether. 

But why, we ask in return, should one object to force per 
se? In this world nothing is bad unless it is put to a bad use. 
Force is not bad, but the use of it may be bad according as 
the aim of the use is bad. Force is an actual factor in Na- 
ture ; now a factor as such is morally indifferent, and it ac- 
quires moral significance only as it relates itself to a controll- 
ing agent; then, it becomes bad if it negates the said control 
and becomes unbridled. Thus, none of the human instincts 
is bad as such; they become bad, as, e. g., the sexual instinct, 
when indulged in to an excess, that is to say, when they get 
the better of the human agent and run out of hand, but when 
under proper restraint, all instincts are legitimate. This 
truth, we know, is a platitude, but it is a truth apt to be for- 
gotten at times. So, Physical force, if under the control of 
reason, is a good and useful instrument; it becomes bad 
w^hen it reverses the order and dictates to reason, when it 
makes right instead of obeying it, when, in short, it becomes 
the master where it normally is the servant. 

Let us extend the scope of the argument. Man, in his re- 
lation to any natural element, aims not to destroy, but to take 
in hand. The wind may blow too hard for man to withstand, 
it may tear down the houses he has built and the ships on 
the sea ; now, the reasonable attitude to take is not to discard 
w^ind as an instrument for the ends of man and treat it as 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 297 

something to be shunned and avoided, but on the contrary to 
labor to bring it more and more within effective control. 
Primitive man, to be sure, took the opposite attitude and re- 
garded the forces of Nature as objects of fear and hatred, 
bvit primitive man has the excuse of ignorance, and the mod- 
ern pacificist has not. Our dictum that "force (armed or 
not) is an instrument," enters a protest as such against the 
doctrine of both the extreme militarist and the extreme paci- 
ficist. As against the former it insists that force is a tool, 
something to serve and not to be served; thus, as against 
Nietzche, it insists that force is not a god to be worshipped, 
but rather a wild beast to be subdued and a weapon to be 
wielded. And, as against the extreme pacificists, the dictum 
insists that force is a legitimate tool, that it may be used, 
that force should not be scouted, but be made a servant to the 
ideal of the spirit. In short, two alternatives are placed be- 
fore the individual agent, either let the force rule over you or 
rule over the force. Of these, the first is undesirable and 
mischievous in results, if selected, whereas the second is 
desirable and good, and in our world of federated states, 
where force will be maintained as the tool of the law, we will 
certainly cast the lot for the latter alternative. 

5. Before we put an end to this general section, it will be 
well to set our plan into greater relief by placing it in con- 
trast with other schemes calculated to control or end war, 
and to exhibit the difference between the elements of the 
situation now and of that to be realized through the plan as 
herein proposed. 

(a) As things are now, the issues lying before a state are 
limited to war and peace, and very often with justice found 
on the side of war. A given country which perceives right 
violated protests in vain unless it is ready and able to fight 
the offending party with prospects of victory. For that 



298 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

country, war, with all its horrors, will be preferable to peace. 
But when the relation between the states has been incor- 
porated into the sphere of law to be administered by a Fed- 
eral government, the state which suffers will not itself be 
called upon to fight, and justice will be executed by an im- 
partial tribunal through infliction of the necessary punish- 
ment upon the offender. Whereas in the first case the ap- 
plication of force is an interested act, in that it is made by 
the injured party for purposes of self-defense or self-re- 
venge, and consequently entails the arousal of all the pas- 
sions of hatred and fury such as are raging now on the soil 
of the belligerent countries in Europe. In the latter case the 
use of force will be a disinterested act, accompanied by the 
excitement of no animosity or passions. In short, we con- 
vert the issue of war and peace into one of justice and injus- 
tice, and, accepting the presupposition that justice is to be 
preferred, aim to create a situation where justice will not 
mean war as well. 

(b) We may also contrast our plan with the plan which 
relies chiefly on the employment of arbitration as a remedy 
against war. The latter, in some cases, presupposes a situa- 
tion where the states are absolute units, with no legal organ- 
ization to control the sphere of their relations, especially as 
concerns warfare between them. The states merely agree 
to refer their quarrel to a third and neutral party for adju- 
dication, but, if they are not so disposed, they may not agree. 
Even in the case of compulsory arbitration, the affair is pri- 
marily a matter between the states themselves, a quarrel or a 
reconciliation, and it consists merely in an attempt to settle 
the difference otherwise than through war. Hague tribunals 
and other courts of arbitration are useful so far as they go, 
but they do not go very far, even in point of principle, be- 
cause they deal with the war situation as if it is an affair of 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 299 

the individual states as such, in effect viewing the states in 
too pluralistic a fashion, without recognizing the organic 
unity, the real whole, transcending the states as such, but 
constituted by their mutual inter-relationship. 

On the other hand, according to the plan of the establish- 
ment of a general federation, the adjudication of the differ- 
ences between states is not, strictly speaking, an act of ar- 
bitration, but rather a case of the administration of law ; it 
is a matter not of satisfying the interests of the state as 
such, but of maintaining the fabric of justice. Just as in an 
organism matters concerning the adjustment of the func- 
tions of cells with each other relate to the interest, not of the 
cells as such, but of the tissues which they form or the gen- 
eral organism constituted thereby, so within the federation 
the situation will lie on a plane above that of the parties di- 
rectly concerned, and its settlement will be controlled by the 
action of a self-regulating mechanism restoring itself to a 
state of normal functioning. 

With these remarks we conclude our reply to the question 
propounded in the beginning of this chapter with reference 
to the theoretical problem as to the nature of the desirable 
ideal for the relation of the peoples and as to the places of 
war in the plan of that ideal. We have said that co-opera- 
tion on the basis of a federation of states established on the 
lines of nationality, possessing legislative, judicial and execu- 
tive authority over all matters pertaining to the relation of 
state to state, a co-operation allowing rational and useful 
competition, but excluding the waging of warfare, is the de- 
sirable and practicable ideal. The Federal government will 
consider any infringement of the rights of a given state as a 
violation of the Federal law, and treat the act punitively by 
the employment of economic pressure or armed force, and 



300 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

in general will adjudicate all points at dispute between states 
through rulings of a federal judicial tribunal. 

Our reply to the first question, as already given, is at once 
a partial reply to our second question as to the practical 
means to attain the ideal. Our reply registers, e. g., one way 
to avoid war through the setting up of interstate legal au- 
thority; it discusses whether the machinery of the state is 
useful or not relatively to the question of the causation of 
war, and whether nationality must be suppressed in the end 
of killing the germs of animosity between men. Conse- 
quently it will take much less space to expound our spe- 
cific reply to the second question. But before we actively 
engage ourselves with the task, some general remarks may 
prove to the point. 

(I) There is no doubt that at the present the subject of 
war and its prevention, and the establishment of |[)eace. is 
engaging more attention than ever, and there is no doubt, as 
well, that the increase in the amount of attention is due to 
the actual fact of the terrible conflict waged by so many of 
the nations of the world against each other. Now, serious 
danger always arises whenever discussion of a certain topic 
takes its start from actual experience of the fact discussed, 
and for the following reason : An object cannot be seen in 
its true proportion if looked at from too short a distance, 
so that, given the latter, too much stress is apt to l)e laid on 
unimportant features. Let us see how this principle works 
in its effects upon the discussion now carried on about the 
topic of war. 

(a) Any one who has followed the discussion with some 
care will have been struck with the inordinate degree of em- 
phasis laid on the subject of the horrors of war and of the 
evils of which it is the cause. The chief argument directed 
against war is based on the fact that war is very injurious to 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 301 

humanity, causes great pain, much material loss, and a large 
waste of life. Now, a little dose of psychological insight 
would pronounce this procedure an ineffective method of bat- 
tling against war. The most effective means to inhibit a 
given process is not to take direct measures to curb that pro- 
cess, but to initiate another process in a direction contrary to 
that of the first. To illustrate : the surest way to stop the 
flow of water in a certain direction is not to build up a dam 
facing against the direction of its flow, but to open up an- 
other channel in which to divert its flow. Similarly, the most 
efficient educational propaganda should concern itself spe- 
cifically not with pointing out the evils of war, but with oc- 
cupying the mind with the advantages of co-operation and 
the good of enlightened nationalism. Because we human 
folk are now engaged in the process of war, its results occupy 
the focus of our consciousness, and it is against the results 
that we are aiming our criticism ; but naturally, when the war 
is over, and the time comes when we will not be experiencing 
the results immediately, or will at least feel them with less 
intensity, the former arguments which actually depended for 
their force upon the felt evils of the war, will lose their 
force and old self -same desires will spring up again, virile 
and strong and perhaps overwhelming. 

In general, to lay stress on the evil results of a certain in- 
stinct or practice, is not the best means to put an end to the 
exercise of that instinct or practice, for as soon as the actual, 
acute experience of the results is eliminated and the field is 
free the latent desire reasserts itself and tends to shatter at 
once the weak walls built to bar the progress of its flow. To 
apply this to our case, consciousness of the warring instinct 
is accompanied by consciousness of the results of the in- 
stinct only at the moment when the latter is actually indulged 
in and given free rein, but not before; we need, however, an 



302 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

agency which will inhibit the instinct, not after, but before it 
is indulged in. Now, it is only by the opening up of a new 
path that the old can be closed securely ; the new channel be- 
ing given, the current of force is switched off from the old 
into the new, so that by this process of drainage, the first 
instinct is automatically deprived of its power to impel and 
attract. Put in general terms, the positive method of attack 
is more effective than the negative method, and this truth 
must be impressed upon the minds of the many well-mean- 
ing propagandists who content themselves with harping con- 
tinually on the amount of distress and loss for which war is 
responsible. 

(b) Any discussion of the merits of a situation which 
(discussion) is suggested by the actual experiencing of the 
situation itself is usually accompanied by a failure to per- 
ceive things from a true perspective, not only in the sense 
that the negative is given more importance than the positive, 
but in that a general confusion as to the issues involved is 
sure to follow. You find that now the issue is expressed by 
many in terms of the two alternatives, war or peace, or again, 
violent or peaceful solution of conflicts, acceptance of the 
latter alternative being urged at the same time. And the con- 
vinced disciple, when faced with a situation demanding a 
fight for the sake of justice or the use of force in the ends 
of law, is thrown at once into dire perplexity and may actu- 
ally cast the vote for peace even when peace involves the 
sacrifice of justice. Indeed, have not we had already occa- 
sion to consider the protests directed against any use of 
violent measures by the Federal authority for the purpose of 
punishment on the ground that the said use of violence will 
disturb the sway of peace? Such protests, we have said, is- 
sue from people who are confused in their own minds as to 
the true issue. The real alternatives before us are the ren~ 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 303 

dering of justice or not, and not the prevalence of peace or 
not. The question is not whether war or peace exist as be- 
tween two states, but whether the one does or does not stand 
in rightful relation toward the other, and the other to the 
one; the primary task is the satisfaction of the demands of 
justice and the reinstatement of injured rights, and upon this 
level arises the question as to whether this task may not be 
accomplished without warfare or the use of armed force. 
To call oneself a pacificist is to take the cue from the mili- 
tarist and move on his own level of thought, though in an 
opposite direction ; more correctly, we should be not pacific- 
ists, advocates of peace, as such, hut rather advocates of 
justice, of organization and of the maintenance of law. 

(II) Let us, secondly, realize that the soil on which the 
practical patriot and humanitarian are to work lies in the 
cavity of the recesses of the soul, so that to bring about the 
application of the desirable ideal one has essentially to take 
account of and deal with desires, deep-rooted instincts, in- 
hibitions, ideas, philosophical beliefs, sentiments, in a word, 
mental processes. If there is to be a change, it will be a 
change of the heart primarily, of dispositions, and of the 
intellect, of accepted views and convictions. Consequently 
the positive work of meeting the situation must consist in 
the use of forces tending to change the mental point of view 
and to create a public opinion enlightened in the way desired. 
All other means are bound to be merely external and hence 
futile. The mechanism of the court of arbitration, of inter- 
national parliaments, the structure of enlightened legislation 
and the rest, will be of no avail, unless the soul of man is dis- 
posed to make use of the machinery and to obey the law. In 
this respect Mr. Roosevelt is justified in urging against all 
schemes of comprehensive and compulsory arbitration of 
disputes between states that if public opinion is not prepared 



304 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

to abide by the agreements, and Mr. Roosevelt thinks it is 
not, such schemes are futile and worse than futile, because 
the conclusion of agreements, by which the parties to the 
agreement are temperamentally unable to abide, breeds dis- 
honesty and disregard for solemn promises. Undoubtedly, 
in order that any new mechanism of conciliation and co- 
operation be built up and operated, there must be readiness 
and ability on the part of the public to work the mechanism. 

2. Now, then, the above are the maxims which should 
guide all efforts at a practical solution of the difficulty, 
namely, (a) emphasis should be laid on positive rather than 
on negative measures; (b) the issues should be clearly dis- 
tinguished and their relative importance ascertained, and (c) 
the essentially psychological nature of the problem should 
be recognized. Let us meanwhile acknowledge that work in 
the negative direction, though secondary to and presupposing 
work in the positive direction, is nevertheless important and 
useful. Hence we will advocate employment of both posi- 
tive and negative measures in the end of realizing the federa- 
tion as suggested. 

Now. on the one hand, the positive contribution to the so- 
lution of the problem will consist in the building up of all the 
psychic habits of action, of sentiment and of thought which 
are presupposed in the erection and maintenance of the struc- 
ture of the Federal union; on the other hand, the negative 
contribution will consist in the elimination of all factors 
working against the realization of this end, and, since war is 
the strongest factor opposing the co-operative spirit and the 
practice of federation, the said negative contribution to the 
solution will consist in the employment of measures to 
eliminate war itself, if possible. We will begin with the dis- 
cussion of the negative. 

(1) In hitting upon measures to stop war, we should not 



PEACE WITH justice: 305 

let ourselves be hurried; change is slow and a natural pro- 
cess takes its own time. Short of the best, we should be con- 
tent with the better, with the good, even with the less worse, 
welcoming eagerly any movement ahead that we note, using 
even half measures where full measures are inapplicable. 
And secondly, in a situation concerning steps to be taken by 
all nations together, it will be unwise to wait until the last 
laggard has, on his own accord, expressed his willingness to 
follow suit. Humanity stands in need of leaders who will 
forge ahead of the rank and file, who will set examples and 
push the scheme through with vigor, who will urge the others 
by all forces of persuasion to prosecute the forward train, 
and in extreme circumstances even compel them to enter the 
line. Let us now examine, in their proper order, the steps to 
be taken, beginning with those easiest of application and the 
least radical, and following with those that are most revo- 
lutionary. 

(a) Mr. W. J. Bryan has proposed that, in every case, a 
year be set aside for discussion, whenever any acute differ- 
ence arises between two states, before a final decision is 
taken. The proposal takes account of the fact that hurry 
engenders excitement and serves to inflame the violent pas- 
sions, whereas reason operates with deliberation and takes 
its own time ; thus, it is clear that Austria, which had made 
up its mind to fight Serbia, purposely assigned a very short 
time limit for the handing in by the latter of a reply to her 
ultimatum, and later refused to extend the said limit, be- 
cause she anticipated that her plan would probably be 
thwarted in case this were done. 

Nevertheless, to agree in general to set aside any definite 
amount of time — say a year — during which decision will be 
withheld, is of doubtful value, for the reason that some 
calls brook no delay and some situations are urgent in na- 



306 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

ttire, and require immediate attention. It has already been 
pointed out by others that if a state takes occupation by 
force of, say, a foreign island, the year's interval of breath- 
ing-spell will afford it ample time to fortify the position se- 
curely so that the party injured, will, at the expiration of the 
interval, find that its hands are completely tied. But al- 
though it is unwise to lay down set rules about the matter, 
the general principle underlying the suggestion should be 
heeded and deliberation and decision should never be rushed. 

(b) A second suggestion is to the effect that committees 
of reconciliation be appointed which will make available 
their good offices for two or more states w^hich find them- 
selves at odds with each other. It is oftentimes true that 
the states directly involved in a dispute are so inflamed 
with passion, that, for them, cool reasoning and mutual 
comprehension become impossible — and then the labors of a 
neutral committee which would serve as a go-between, a 
mediator, or a conciliator, would be necessary and fruitful. 
Of course, this step goes to a very short distance, for a 
state which is determined to fight will contemptuously toss 
aside the overtures of such a committee ; yet the parties are 
not uncompromising always, and in many cases of difference 
between states the requisite element is not so much agree- 
ing mutually on legal and technical points, but possessing the 
proper disposition to agree and taking the attitude of con- 
ciHation. It is in such situations that the committee as pro- 
posed will furnish useful service tending to infuse a con- 
genial atmosphere and the spirit of compromise into the sur- 
roundings. 

(c) It is further suggested that complete disarmament be 
immediately decided upon by all states. This proposal 
takes account of the fact that working for and producing in- 
struments for a given end kindles the impulse to make use 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 307 

of the instrument by creating a situation where such use 
will be necessary, so that, similarly, possession by a state of 
the instruments of warfare impels the state to go to war in 
order to put the weapon to use. And then, of course, it is 
tacitly presupposed that by removing the instrument we re- 
move the capacity, as well as weaken the desire, to realize 
the end, i. e., war. 

But surely the actual facts do not warrant this conclusion, 
(a) To take up the latter point — depriving the desire of its 
tool does not necessarily mean killing the desire itself or 
rendering it completely helpless. It is the tool which de- 
pends upon the desire — for the desire creates the tool — and 
not the desire upon the tool. The desire — provided that it is 
strong — will strive to invent some other means, of whatever 
nature, in order to secure its own fulfilment. The method 
of disarmament is too external to warrant much hope in the 
successful issue of its application. 

And (b) supposing, when once complete disarmament has 
been agreed upon and effected, that a state in some way or 
other insults, injures, or violates the honor and rights of 
another state, and it is necessary that punishment be in- 
flicted and justice be rendered. If the guilty state is recal- 
citrant and obstinate, force will probably be necessary to 
bring it to reason, and so the question arises, how will that 
force be secured ? Indeed, supposing the said state had been 
engaged in the secret manufacture of arms and ammunition, 
will not the other states, when the critical moment ar- 
rives, be caught unawares and forced to bend the knee in 
helpless acquiescence to the arrogant transgression of the 
agreement? Optimism is good, but too much of it is not 
justified, and we must always provide for the worst; we 
cannot rely too confidently upon the trustworthiness of 
every state, and there is always the possibility of a violation 



308 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

of a treaty of disarmament. When the United States of 
the World is an accomplished fact, all individual states will 
be disarmed, but there will exist instead an efficient body of 
police — consisting of an army and a navy — under the au- 
thority of the federal government. And until the U. S. W. 
is realized it is necessary to allow states to be armed to a 
certain extent. However, there is no justification for the 
enormous degree in which states have armed themselves at 
the present time, and it is imperative in the ends of peace, 
that the size of armaments be limited by common agreement, 
the extent to which each state is to be armed being deter- 
mined in proportion to the State's size in number of in- 
habitants and in territory. Under this provision, if a given 
state happens to violate the rule, the rest of the states will 
be in a position, by uniting their arms together, to present a 
mailed fist strong enough to intimidate, or, if necessary, to 
compel the culprit to submission. But it must be under- 
stood that armaments thus limited in size, will be allowed to 
continue in being, for a long time at least, as instruments 
of punishment and reparation, until the better days have 
dawned. 

(d) After all is said and done, arbitration remains as the 
most efficient means to apply in the circumstances of our 
age. It is not an ideal means, by far, as we shall soon see ; 
however, it is, most probably, the best available. But the 
machinery of arbitration must be made more perfect than 
the one already in force, if it is to be effective; the existing 
machinery has not been able to stop the Great War and we 
are looking for something which will not break down in the 
face of great crisis. The Hague Court of Arbitration has 
of course been very useful, and Mr. Carnegie, in his essay 
on "The League of Peace," is authority for the statement, 
if we correctly remember, that more than a hundred wars 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 309 

have been killed in the womb, through the ministrations of 
the court; nevertheless, the deplorable fact remains that a 
number of wars have broken out despite the court. Now, 
what are the requisite improvements? We should first en- 
large international law in point of scope, make it clearer, 
fuller, more explicit. The law as such is of no avail as a 
preventive of war, but in the wake of more powerful cur- 
rents it proves to be quite serviceable. Hence, let there be 
established a permanent assembly whose function it will be 
to legislate as necessary, and to keep the body of the law up 
to date. Secondly, and much more important, there must 
be established a permanent court of arbitration. Two meas- 
ures here are of conspicuous significance; (a) the resort to 
arbitration must be compulsory, and (b) the judgment of 
the court must be binding upon all states. And here is the 
crux; is humanity ready to put these measures into force? 
To take up the first — all states should sign treaties by 
which to pledge themselves to refer to arbitration any jus- 
tifiable point of dispute arising between them, and which 
cannot be settled by the usual diplomatic channels of nego- 
tiation. And, furthermore, the states in general should agree 
to compel any state to fulfil the provisions of the said treaty 
if the state fails to do so of its own accord. Now. the con- 
clusion of such treaties between all states will be a very 
difficult matter, as there are bound to be a few states holding 
back, and in this connection the suggestion which we made 
some paragraphs above is in point. We need leaders among 
the states who will be in the van and urge and compel the 
rest to follow. Mr. Roosevelt has proposed that the great 
powers of the world conclude agreements among themselves 
to refer to arbitration all justifiable matters of dispute aris- 
ing between them, and further to combine in the formation 
of a league whose function it will be to compel the other 



310 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

small states to make use of arbitration — if not all the great 
powers, at least, such a number of them as will bring to- 
gether sufficient force to insure compliance by the rest with 
the scheme and workings of arbitration. The value of the 
suggestion lies in the fact that it provides for better progress 
than if all states had to agree together before arbitration 
began to be generally effective. Again, it will be difficult 
to make use of armed force composed of contingents con- 
tributed by every single state, and it will be more convenient 
to muster the forces from among the members of the 
league, as mentioned. 

Our second point refers to compulsory acceptance of the 
verdicts of the arbitral court. Here, too, given a state 
which insists upon formal acceptance of its own side of the 
matter rather than of the version of the court, the rest of 
the states, or a league of the powers, should see to it that 
the verdict of the court is carried out. It must be remarked 
that though the suppression of war will be the result, such 
will not be the only and direct purpose of the general work- 
ing of the court. The prime end of the machinery of ar- 
bitration, as just set forth, will be to award justice, and the 
avowed end of the executive league will be to enforce jus- 
tice; and only when a state revolts against the decision of 
the court, or when, in contempt of court, it directs violent 
measures against another state, will resort be made to either 
economic pressure or armed force. 

But at this juncture we are confronted with a very acute 
problem. Shall or shall not the jurisdiction of the court 
extend over all and any points of difference arising between 
two or more states, — or, to put it otherwise, will a state be 
called upon to arbitrate any matter which concerns it in its 
relation to the other states? Let us at once face the fact 
that unless no exception is made in the respect of the nature 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 311 

of the matters over which the court will possess authority 
to arbitrate, we may as well despair of witnessing the ending 
of war ; for any matter that we may exclude will very prob- 
ably one day furnish the spark which will kindle the con- 
flagration of war. Either we agree that arbitration should 
apply to all points of dispute between states, without excep- 
tion, or otherwise we acquiesce in the possible and probable 
recurrence of war. We say "probable" intentionally, for 
if, say, questions of honor are to form the exception, a state 
may very easily put forth the claim of insult to its honor as 
a pretext to embark upon war against another state. Let us 
forthwith examine the questions which, it is declared by 
many, should be deemed non-arbitrable. 

These may be summed up as (a) private and personal 
affairs of the state on the one hand, and (b) matters of 
honor, on the other. Self-defence is often urged by states 
as the purpose for which they engage in war, but self-de- 
fence will not furnish a possible pretext for war, when ar- 
bitration has been established as compulsory, for surely the 
court will be competent to pronounce judgment adversely to 
the state which conceives aggressive designs against its 
neighbors and engineers wars to secure occupation of for- 
eign territory, (a) With respect to purely personal affairs 
of the state, Mr. Roosevelt has mentioned the Monroe Doc- 
trine and the control by the government of the U. S. A. of 
the size and quality of immigration into this country. Mr. 
Roosevelt insists that these questions and possibly others 
relate to inalienable rights of the states concerned and con- 
sequently are not susceptible of arbitration. Now, in view 
of this allegation, some explanation is necessary. It must 
be kept in mind that the court of arbitration will possess no 
authority to interfere with the internal affairs of the state. 
It must be laid down that a country has a general right to 



312 WAR OR A UNITED WORIvD 

be master in its own house, and that this right will not be 
questioned, will not be even discussed by the court, for, let 
us note, the court of arbitration is to be not a destructive, 
but a conservative force, whose purpose will be the assur- 
ance to each state of the enjoyment of its rights. Conse- 
quently, no state will have reason to fear any loss of its 
individual rights through the comprehensive operation of 
the arbitral court. Thus, granted that the control of the 
influx of humanity from without into a given state is an in- 
ternal affair of the said state in that such influx affects di- 
rectly the internal situation of the country, whenever ac- 
knowledgment of such right is withheld, and attempt is made 
by another state to override such control, the court will sim- 
ply consider and determine whether violation of the right of 
a state to manage its own affairs has occurred and give de- 
cision upon the merits of the results of the inquiry into this 
matter solely, without passing upon the question as to the 
wisdom of the act of the state itself in the particular control 
which it has assumed over immigration. In other words, 
regulating the control of immigration into a given country, 
by the country itself, provided it is a matter of internal in- 
terest for the state, is a right which will constitute a start- 
ing point for the court, and not a matter to be discussed. 
The provision that the matter is of private concern for the 
state is necessary, and if not fulfilled — that is to say, if the 
matter concerns the other states in equal degree or rather 
concerns the relation of the state to the other states, we do 
not see any warrant for exempting it from arbitration. We 
insist only that the court is to occupy itself with the affairs 
of the relationship between states, but not of the internal ad- 
ministration of the state. 

It is but natural that the internal affairs of a state will 
make up a sanctum sanctorum into which none other but the 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 313 

state itself may set foot, and the provision does not really 
imply excepting any matters from the jurisdiction of the 
court; on the contrary, it entails merely specifying the man- 
ner in which such matters will be dealt with. To summar- 
ize, the provision will be that whenever disputes arise out of 
refusal by one state to conform with the regulations of an- 
other state with respect to its own internal affairs, the court 
of arbitration will give verdict only as to whether such re- 
fusal has happened — considering the said refusal, whenever 
occurring, as a violation of right — and will in no wise con- 
sider whether the nature of the regulation by the state of its 
affairs is proper or not, or take action to impugn the validity 
of the regulation. 

(b) We now take up the question of honor. Can a state, 
it is urged, conserve its dignity without striking back when 
its person is insulted and its honor besmirched? Does not 
the individual take the law into his own hands when the 
honor of his wife or sister is violated? How then can we 
expect the injured state to bring the matter into the notice 
of the arbitral court, and leave it there, content with the de- 
cision of a third party ? 

Well, opinion may vary, but for our part we do not see 
why the state should not satisfy itself with referring the 
matter to arbitration. President Wilson has finely said that 
there is something like being too proud to fight, and an in- 
dividual, fully conscious of his dignity, may similarly dis- 
dain to wreak revenge through the employment of violence 
upon the wretch who has insulted him ever so vilely and 
brutally. A fine nature never stoops down to the same 
level from one which its unworthy foe has levelled his in- 
famous shafts — never uses the same weapons, never pays 
the brute with the same coin. And so in regard to the 
sphere of states ; we do not see why the interests of the dig- 



314 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

nity of the insulted state should demand a direct violent at- 
tack upon the offender and why the state should not — con- 
tent to let the processes of the arbitral court take their nor- 
mal course — disdain to take notice of the wicked offender. 
To the sneer that the state which is too proud to fight will 
make easy food for its greedy enemy, we hasten to reply 
that we throughout presuppose this to be a matter solely of 
honor, and not of self-defense against foreign greed and 
aggression. But in case of self-defense, as well, we have 
seen that the league of the states will seize upon the guilty 
party and prevent forcibly the execution of its sinister 
designs. 

And yet, even if insult to honor and interference with the 
internal administration of a state cease to constitute breed- 
ing places for the germs of war, there remains a third issue 
which seems to block unavoidably the path of completely 
comprehensive arbitration. We mean the following: (c) 
As conditions are nowadays, a number of nationalities are 
subject to the rule of other nationalities — an abnormal sit- 
uation indeed, due to our sins of the past — and we may ex- 
pect that some day the subject nations will make insistent 
demands in order to secure their lost independence. Sup- 
posing that the ruling states refuse to accede to their de- 
mands, is there any way to prevent the outbreak of war 
and bloodshed? The court of arbitration cannot but re- 
spect the law, and a state which possesses de facto control 
over the fortunes and affairs of a given nation has legal 
right to continue in the same possession. Legally, the court 
will be powerless to give judgment to the effect that the 
subject nation be granted the liberty, to which it possesses a 
moral right, by the ruling state, for the court cannot create 
legal rights or change their status ; it only takes account of 
a situation, but is without means for altering the status quo. 




WOODKOW WILSON 

I'KIOSIOENT Ol- THK U. S. 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 315 

And yet the subject nationality possesses from nature the 
inalienable right to freedom and it will be inhuman to pre- 
vent it from using all the forces at its command in the end 
of taking effective possession of that right. Thus, the court 
of arbitration can have authority neither to demand of a 
nation fighting for its freedom that it desist, and that it re- 
spect the master who has wooed her by force, nor to compel 
the latter to give up the reins and grant the subject nation 
her political independence. So, unless the ruling state, of 
its own accord, grants the desired freedom to the subject 
people, war, more specifically, a war of liberation, seems the 
only solution. Such war is unavoidable because, as mat- 
ters stand, Turkey rules over a large section of discontented 
Greeks and Armenians, Russia reigns over the Finns, Brit- 
ain over Hindoos, Germany over Poles and the inhabitants 
of Alsace-Lorraine — to mention only a few instances; and 
as the governing empires seem unwilling to forego control 
over their own wards, we may expect to see the disputes 
which will inevitably arise when the peoples in subjection 
awake to self-consciousness and become endowed with the 
adequate moral and physical force, settled on the soil of the 
battlefield. In short, we may as well admit that to all in- 
tents and purposes this war is not the last war, for of the 
two sides, although the side defeated may be made to forego 
its possessions, the victors, on the other hand, will be apt 
to tighten their grasp on their own ; and let us keep in mind 
that the way of change and progress is rough, and that the 
states are bound to trip, and perhaps fall, as they move for- 
ward. Nevertheless, this situation will not continue in- 
definitely, and when once readjustment has been effected, 
even through war, and the nations have achieved their lib- 
erties respectively, the dangers of war issuing from this 
quarter will cease to exist. 



316 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

We have agreed that arbitration is the most efficient ex- 
pedient for the prevention of war, and yet, if we but look, 
how many difficulties do we not discover besetting its path ? 
For one thing, have we the right to expect that al! the states 
will agree to sign treaties of arbitration as suggested? Can 
we hope that, e. g., such a state as Germany will be of our 
mind, given that but a few years ago the Imperial Chan- 
cellor, Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg, in a speech in the 
Reichstag, declared in so many words that efforts to insure 
the complete prevalence of peace are bound to be futile, and 
that war is a process inseparable from the life of a nation? 
And then, even if it be admitted in theory and principle that 
a state may resort to a court for the arbitration of a question 
of honor, without lowering its dignity in the least, shall we 
find the mass of the nations, in their present stage of de- 
velopment, in a mood to accept the judgment of a dispas- 
sionate intellect, that is to say, to feel as well as think 
rightly, and thus to agree to place under the jurisdiction of 
the court of arbitration all disputes arising between them? 
This reflection gives us occasion to repeat that the negative 
remedy depends on, and presupposes, the positive remedy, 
and that the external draws power to live from the internal ; 
that unless the peoples are endowed with the requisite dis- 
position, no plan, no measure, no mechanism, however per- 
fect it may be as such, will succeed. Take the Monroe 
Doctrine; nozv, it constitutes a distinct issue, but supposing 
the nations co-operate to form a federation and agree to 
drop all designs of aggression altogether, each concentrating 
its efforts to the most thorough cultivation of its resources 
in unison with the rest, what need will there be for the said 
doctrine when there will be no fear that America may be 
made the object of military invasion or of exploitation by 
foreign governments? Under the new conditions such acts 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 317 

and processes will automatically lose their significance, and 
m fact such terms as "occupation of territory" or "foreign 
political exploitations" will become meaningless. It must 
be noted that, given difficulties which appear insurmountable, 
and given problems for which the only solution seems war, 
or conditions in which justice seems to demand war, the es- 
tablishment of federation will operate to remedy the ills not 
directly, but indirectly, by preventing the recurrence of those 
situations in which the said problems normally arise, by re- 
moving the ground from under the feet of the difficulties, so 
to speak. 

(2) We return, therefore, lastly, to the most significant 
feature of this aspect of our discussion, namely, the ques- 
tion of the positive development of a spirit of co-operation 
and a sense of solidarity among the peoples, with the ulti- 
mate end of establishing the fabric of a United States of 
the World. We have said above that the soil upon which 
work is to be performed is physical rather than material. 
As we take our stand upon this point of view, we find our- 
selves baffled in our efforts, for, comparatively easy as it is 
to operate upon and fashion, the external, it is especially 
difficult to influence the internal. The depths of the soul are 
not directly accessible to external stimulus, and to a large 
extent we will have to trust Nature to take its own course. 

Now, the condition we desire to have realized among the 
peoples consists of the right sort of mental attitude, the 
good will, the good feeling, the sensible opinion about the 
matter ; and the bringing of this about will be the task of a 
world-wide movement of education in all branchings and 
situations of life, and by all possible means. 

(a) The educational movement will firstly instill the right 
and proper convictions in the mind of the people. A Man's 
general point of view — his weltanschaaung — usually deter- 



318 WAR OR A UNITED WORI.D 

mines the nature of his action and it is our duty to approach 
his soul first from that vantage-point. People therefore 
must be given to understand what we have urged in the 
opening pages of this chapter, namely, that war is not a 
necessity, neither is it a normal process in the life of the 
people — that when it arises it is more often due to the ex- 
cessive control which the pugnacious instinct has assumed 
over the individual members of the race and as such is an 
abnormality, a symptom of atavism; that, as Mr. Norman 
Angell has undertaken to prove repeatedly, states, so inti- 
mately connected with each other as they are, are bound to 
lose in point of their economic resources through the wag- 
ing of mutual conflict, and that the victor in the war suf- 
fers as well as the party defeated, because no state is com- 
pletely self-sufficient and self-supporting; that a country, 
even if through victory it adds to its territory- at the ex- 
pense of that of the neighboring state, gains nothing thereby 
— the old conception of war as plunder being rendered old- 
fashioned through the progress of modem conditions, so 
that in the present stage of civilization, whichever state 
may govern a given country, the property remains in the 
hands of the individual private holders; that when a diffi- 
culty arises, the way to settle it is through appeal to reason 
and ultimately to law rather than through direct appeal to 
force; that when nations co-operate in economic and cul- 
tural tasks the benefits are mutual; that loyalty to one's 
own country does not demand ill-will for the countries of 
others respectively, because no one nation's real good can 
be secured at the price of another nation's real loss; that 
beyond the good of each nation as such there lies another 
and greater good, the good of all the nations together — of 
humanity — and that therefore nations should organize them- 
selves into a co-operative union whose aim will be to pro- 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 319 

mote that common good and to suppress the currents which 
naturally oppose it. To those who cannot understand the 
language of altruism we must speak the language of inter- 
est and make clear that it is always to the mature interest of 
the state, sometimes in the short and always in the long run, 
to enter into agreements with other states, to work with 
them in harmony, not to put obstacles before their path to 
prosperity, but to find its own good in that of all the others. 

(b) And by thus influencing men's opinions we hope to 
reach into the atmosphere of their sentiments and disposi- 
tions and mould these accordingly. Our educational propa- 
ganda must therefore operate on the soil of the heart and 
use all influences in order to create a nobler spirit of pa- 
triotism among the nations, not chauvinistic, but broad and 
rational, and to inspire and intensify the devotion to those 
ends which embrace the common good of all peoples. With 
respect to the war-mania, if the pugnacious instinct proves 
too strong to be uprooted, and indeed too useful to warrant 
such uprootal, let us find other channels than warfare for 
its flow. Heroism may flourish on other fields than those 
of battle, and danger may confront the spirit on any plane 
of action, wherever endurance is required and self-sacri- 
fices demanded; and let the heart of man be so influenced 
as to feel that the performance of the common tasks of duty 
exhibits as much heroism as any sensational feat of arms. 
The fight to secure control over the forces of Nature is of 
enough intensity and presents enough complexity to task 
the physical energies of man and his ingenuity to their limit 
and to serve as a convenient channel in which the strong 
current of man's aggressive instincts may flow. 

In general, let us use measures to put these instincts into 
complete subjection to reason, in order that they may not 
run away with the individual agent, even when the bugle 



320 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

calls of the jingoist and his press are loudest and the clash 
of the sword in the scabbard sounds most attractive to the 
ear. Not only should the exercise of the belligerent in- 
stincts be kept in restraint, but other instincts should be 
aroused and strengthened as well, namely, the sense of solid- 
arity and the instinct of altruism as between nation and na- 
tion. Indifference is almost as bad as hatred, and the people 
of no nation should be indifferent to the iiv^eds of humanity 
at large and more particularly of their neighboring coun- 
tries. To this end, the disposition to work in common should 
be sedulously cultivated and a national heart oe bred which 
will suffer at the sufferings of the others as well as of its 
own, and the sentiment of sympathy be given an interna- 
tional as well as an inter-individual scope. Now, feelings 
and dispositions are fed primarily from the storehouse of 
example, and our propaganda of education will be effective 
in so far as it is enabled to point to conspicuous instances of 
states governed in their course by noble moral principles and 
when, indeed, there will exist such examples among the na- 
tions as will awaken and enhance the instincts of goodwill 
toward people and the bonds of sympathy among them. 

What will be the field upon which our educators will cast 
their seed? 

(a) Chiefly, perhaps, the hearts and minds of the children. 
Hopes for betterment center always on the coming genera- 
tion, for the grown-ups have already cast themselves into a 
mould whose configuration they are unable to change to any 
appreciable extent, whereas the youngsters are pliable in na- 
ture and extremely susceptible to influence from without. 
The propaganda must begin in the school ; there will the fu- 
ture leaders be trained to think internationally and to see not 
a potential enemy in a citizen of a foreign state, but a possi- 
ble partner ; there will the masses be instructed into a higher 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 321 

patriotism, not indeed a patriotism which forgets the father- 
land in order to remember humanity, but one which through 
attachment to the fatherland promotes service for humanity, 
which does not exclude interest in and desire for the good 
of the other nations and which finds place within an atmos- 
phere of loyalty to the best and noblest interest of all man- 
kind. 

(b) Business is another field to be cultivated. The life 
of the peoples moves nowadays on the economic level prin- 
cipally, and much gc y may result if a proper direction be 
given to the forces which control the currents of economic 
life. By tightening the bonds of trade and commerce among 
the nations we if icrease the solidarity between them, and the 
first great step to let loose the energies of economic co-opera- 
tion will be the establishment of universal free trade. Visits 
of tradespeople from one country to another should be en- 
couraged and actively promoted in order that the people 
should know each other better, and it is a hopeful sign that 
labor has already transcended the borders of nationality and 
laborers of one country have co-operated and fraternized 
with laborers of another. This necessity of securing the 
members of humanity will make the acquaintance of each 
other, cannot be stressed too strongly, for, as the saying 
goes, to understand is to forgive, and by such mutual ac- 
quaintance many national prejudices will be killed. Further- 
more, the means of communication between state and state 
become easier of access with time, but on the other hand the 
difference in languages necessarily persists; however, the 
genius of humanity, we may hope, will evolve an interna- 
tional language, a language of all mankind, not as replacing, 
but as supplementing the national languages. 

(c) The church must take the position of a leader in the 
movement; the old view that religion concerns the fortunes 



322 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

of the individual only, is passing away, and we believe that 
the salvation of society is just as imperative a task for re- 
ligion as the salvation of the individual. And the church 
as the organization of the forces of religion must awaken to 
its mission of sounding the clarion call of justice and peace 
to nations as well as to individuals. 

(d) And finally, effective work must be performed upon 
the soil of officialdom and diplomacy. Our politicians and 
diplomats have very often not kept in time with the beating 
of the people's heart and have made their own personal quar- 
rels fruitful causes for international conflict. Political and 
diplomatic action should be given more and more, if possible, 
complete publicity, in order that such action be brought into 
closer touch with the life of the man in the street and the 
woman in the home. And the chief officers of the common- 
wealth must be recruited less from privileged classes and 
more from the mass, from the real workers and forgers of 
the nation's destinies, who naturally sense more directly the 
good of the country, who feel more intensely their solidarity 
with the other nations, so that the public administration and 
diplomacy of the future may be emancipated from the point 
of view heretofore adopted which would discover a foe in 
a stranger, and a prey in the neighboring nation, an object 
to be feared and plotted against or to be despised and ex- 
ploited in the service of selfish ends. 



We have said our say, and we may enjoy for a moment 
the pleasures of a retrospective glance. 

Is the plan a Utopian ideal, is it all too good and impossi- 
ble ? Do we call for more than human nature can stand, for 
heights loftier than the energies of man can attain? No, we 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 323 

do not think so. In the matter of disposition and feeling, we 
are urging that the consciousness of the nation reaHze what 
the consciousness of the individual has already made its own. 
Not a gushing sympathy, neither an unselfish self-sacrifice 
for the others, this is not strictly necessary, but essentially a 
sense of solidarity among the nations, such as has already 
been realized among individuals. The man, individually, 
knows that his interests are linked with the interests of his 
fellows, and, whether he loves his neighbor or not, he is ready 
to work with him or divide his labor with him. The savages 
used to fight against each other; now individuals co-operate 
with each other in order to fight, in the struggle of life, 
against Nature. Competition has not disappeared, but it 
has only altered in form, and now in villages, in towns and 
in cities you see men pursuing their daily labor at the side 
of their fellows, trading with them, forming partnerships 
together, and struggling in common to earn their living re- 
spectively, competing with each other, to be sure, and even 
cruelly, let us admit, but not by trying to destroy each other's 
potential energies and innate capacity to produce, but each 
by working to make a better success than his rivals, by mak- 
ing better goods and selling them at more reasonable prices, 
in effect, by outdistancing his fellows in the race for sub- 
sistence. 

You will say that in all this the individual is working for 
his own interest, and indeed our point is precisely this, that 
the individual has recognized the truth that to promote his 
own good he must co-operate with his fellows in the promo- 
tion of their own. In other words, the scope of the personal 
interest has so enlarged that it now embraces the good of the 
other fellow as well, and the weaver upon Nature's loom 
perceives that to satisfy his own interest he must take ac- 
count of the general interest of the community of which he 



324 WAR OR A UNITED WORLD 

is a member. This is exactly what soHdarity means. And 
why should it be impossible to develop precisely the same 
consciousness among the nations, so that competition among 
them will not be direct and in terms of violent conflict, but 
indirect, in terms of making the most of Nature, so that a 
given nation, pursuing with all its might the fulfillment of 
its destiny, will see and feel that its own good is bound up 
with the good of the other nations, and realize that, in order 
to have its own interest fulfilled, recognition must be 
awarded to the sum of all interests? Solidarity above all, 
and in every respect, this is to be the motto inscribed on the 
banner which will lead the people in the path of progress. 

Change in national characteristics is slow and difficult, 
but change is not impossible. Once upon a time, and not very 
lone ago, religious differences were causes of internecine 
wars and frightful devastations; now, matters of religion 
scarcely play a part in the regulation of the relations be- 
tween states, and the Sheik-ul-Islam's fierce call to a "jehad" 
has fallen on avowedly scornful, even deaf, ears. We have 
recognized that progress will take its own time, that we may 
not hope to stop all wars at once, that our instruments are 
not perfect, and that, after all, we can aid only indirectly the 
steady work of Nature, just as the physician has similarly 
recognized with respect to the treatment of individual ills. 
To those who, losing their wits, and seized by hysterical 
fears, blunder as to the issues and set to getting rid of war in 
a mad hurry, acting as if war were a bubble to be blown into 
nothing with a mere whiff, we address the solemn warn- 
ing of the ancient Greeks, " SjievSe pQaSEOog" (make haste 
slowly) and beg to remind them that quick remedies are 
mostly quack remedies. And, if we are patient, we will have 
no reason to despair of witnessing better days. He who ex- 
pects the achievement of the maximum, the ideally good and 



PEACE WITH JUSTICE 325 

perfect, will be surely disappointed, and bitter tears will shed 
the person who sets his heart upon catching the moon. But 
he who, shutting his eyes to schemes of Utopian perfection, 
aims only at the better, and from the better moves on to the 
still better, who is not discouraged by failures, but makes of 
obstacles stepping stones for further progress in a path of 
which he does not see the end, a practical idealist, in short, 
will surely not be disappointed. 



THE END 






,^'■ % 



v. ■ 






A 



y...:% 



,0o^ , , , „ ,.. , 





'%^<.-^ 




/'*^- 


5 cN' 




^bo"^ 




x*"" '■*- 





^^ <f'% 















A*'-'>^ 






'^^ 


"/ 




■-00^ 




N.^ 






^•^ 


v''^ 






z;^'. 


.^\' 






\ 'v^ ''/ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 

, ^' •■ ,, /^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

^-: Treatment Date: ^^^ - 2002 

^ ^ PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Tliomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 






'V 



^'^ r0"^^^ 



■x^'%, 






■^' 



^^^ V^^ 



oN 



^^ '% 












